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.”

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…

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.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I wonder how this will work in practice since most of the time if you kill someone under the influence your life is basically over. Not exactly going to be able to pay a percent of your earnings while you are in jail.

lntl ,

nah, cyclist here. people “walk” on vehicular manslaughter all the time. it’s super fucked up. commonly a suspended sentence is issued.

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/fcb5249d-fc57-45f3-9f90-8115e8173b05.png

afraid_of_zombies ,

Gee that is just fucking peachy.

danielton ,

Wait until you hear how many people are driving without a license at all.

aidan ,

Vehicular manslaughter !== Killing someone by drunk driving. Drunk driving is clear negligence, hitting someone entirely on accident shouldn’t ruin two lives. In those articles it doesn’t say anything about the driver being drunk

lntl , (edited )

This guy was on drugs and frustrated because a “slow driver” ahead of him. he killed someone. it’s really very common.

…com.au/…/jason-dean-velda-mandurah-man-avoids-im…

aidan ,

This guy was on drugs and frustrated because a “slow driver” ahead of him.

Ah ok than should do jail time.

lntl ,

i 100% agree with you and 200% disagree with the judge and legal system who let him walk

Skates ,

hitting someone entirely on accident shouldn’t ruin two lives.

Why? Was the victim entirely innocent? Did it result in permanent injury or death of the victim(s)? Would it have been less dangerous if the one who produced the accident did not drive a car? Was the driver incapacitated by alcohol/drugs/anything else? If the answer to ANY of those is “yes”, then it should very fucking well ruin two lives. And if the driver had a license, the entire system that granted them the responsibility of handling a few tons of metal should be considered accomplices until they can fucking prove otherwise.

Or at least have the decency to let the victim’s family decide, don’t take it upon yourself to just casually forgive a mistake if it had no impact on you.

Surreal ,

So if a person runs and appears out of nowhere in front of a moving car and it results in them being hit, the driver’s life should be ruined? It’s called accident for a reason, nobody wanted it.

noreason ,

Yeah, I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a cyclist blow through a stop sign onto through an intersection where one road doesn’t have a stop sign.

BilboBargains ,

It’s one of the many benefits of cycling. You get perfect visibility of the driver’s anguished expression while they wait in traffic. Unfortunately, the cyclist pays the ultimate price when the driver makes a mistake like having one too many drinky poos at the office party and getting behind the wheel.

aidan ,

Or at least have the decency to let the victim’s family decide, don’t take it upon yourself to just casually forgive a mistake if it had no impact on you.

No? If you robbed me I shouldn’t be able to decide your sentence.

Why? Was the victim entirely innocent? Did it result in permanent injury or death of the victim(s)? Would it have been less dangerous if the one who produced the accident did not drive a car? Was the driver incapacitated by alcohol/drugs/anything else? If the answer to ANY of those is “yes”

I strongly disagree with that, it is unfair to expect people to be infallible, obviously being under the influence is easy to avoid, and so is negligent. But say a mom’s driving and one of her kids stands up and starts doing something distracting just as a cyclist blows through a stop sign? Or one of many million more possible scenarios.

PunnyName ,

It’s a combination of neighbors and vehicular manslaughter.

huge_clock ,

criminal negligence causing death is manslaughter.

aidan ,

Yes for drunk driving- I agree. My issue is saying that someones life being ruined if they weren’t impaired and made what was a genuine mistake.

PickTheStick ,

I have an aunt with six DUIs. After the second, they all become felonies, which are supposed to be 2 years at least in jail. I don’t think she’s ever spent more than a day in jail. Intoxication manslaughter may be worse, but the courts treat alcohol related incidents with kid gloves a LOT of the time.

klyde ,
@klyde@lemmy.world avatar

Is it Wisconsin? People up there get like 16.

Raab ,

Can confirm, from northern Wisconsin. Definitely have seen people with 10+

danielton ,

Can confirm. I’m in southeastern Wisconsin, and DUIs are a normal part of life for many people here. The punishments for DUIs and reckless driving are a joke in this state.

Agent641 ,

My brother spent 3 seperate days in jail for 5 drunk driving charges.

I mean he’s my brother, but lock that idiot up for a while longer, at least.

atempuser23 ,

This creates an incentive to let high earners:wealthy people :off the hook for jail time since they will have to earn money to pay for the support. This of course won’t apply to lower earners which will go to jail.

fne8w2ah ,

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

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.

quindraco ,

So now drunk drivers have an incentive to claim it was intentional, not accidental.

The overall idea here is excellent, but it is fundamentally nonsensical to only apply it to drunk drivers and not all killers.

doggle ,

I guess… but that’s a risky move in a state that’s pretty gung-ho with the death penalty. I think most would rather pay the child support than admit to second or first degree murder

overzeetop ,
@overzeetop@lemmy.world avatar

What I want to know is if they have to keep paying if the kids never graduate. It’s Texas so it seems like the odds are pretty high you could be paying for some dudes kids until they either get shot in a bar or do a lethal fentanyl hit.

Hangglide ,

Child support continues until the child is no longer a child (18).

overzeetop ,
@overzeetop@lemmy.world avatar

Someone might want to fix the summary. In bold it says 18 or when they graduate from high school *whichever is later *.

Coehl ,
@Coehl@programming.dev avatar

You’d have to edit the article and even the legislation too then. capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/…/HB00393I.htm

Because they both say that too.

Lol. It’s bold for a reason. Because it’s intentionally highlighting this aspect of the new legislation.

Coehl ,
@Coehl@programming.dev avatar

Am I misunderstanding “until the child is 18 or graduates high school, whichever is later”?

Reeeaaally getting some Reddit vibes when the person that seems to have read the synopsis, at least, is getting down voted for it…

11181514 ,

You think first degree murder would be a better financial decision than manslaughter?

Agreed with your second sentence. Though I think the state should step in to help the kids in either instance. If they’re convicted and are in prison it’s trying to get blood from a stone at that point.

This is Texas though. This isn’t about helping anyone it’s just grandstanding for votes.

Default_Defect ,
@Default_Defect@midwest.social avatar

For some people, prison could be a better alternative to becoming homeless due to an even smaller paycheck. I don’t think the idea of it is as outlandish as you think.

I_Fart_Glitter ,

That reminds me of something that may not at all be true (please correct me if I’m wrong) I was told it, many years ago, by a person who lived for a few years in China.

She said that there was a law there (in the '90s at least) that if you injured someone accidentally to the point that they were disabled, you had to pay their disability as long as they lived (or you die, whichever is first). BUT if you accidentally killed someone (not murdered) then you just had to pay their family a fine.

The fine was much less than a lifetime of disability payments, so there was incentive, if you accidentally injured someone (especially a child with a lot of years to live) to just go all the way and kill them as long as it could feasibly look like an accident.

afraid_of_zombies ,

A classic example of perverse incentives. Same for endangered animals. The most rational self-interest thing you can do is you see some endangered animal on your land is to kill it. Since if the government becomes aware of it you will lose control of your property and it will lose resell value.

You want to make things such that doing the morally correct, or at least the correct for the greater good, is always the best option for people to choose.

SheeEttin ,

This is also an argument against extreme punishment for lesser offenses. For example, if you rape someone, and the penalty is death, might as well kill them too, because it ain’t gonna get any worse for you if you get caught.

Coehl , (edited )
@Coehl@programming.dev avatar

The amount of people that either cannot read or cannot fathom that their preconceived notion of how this legislation will work is much too high. And the cockiness of their demeanor…

The payments end when both criteria are met. The minor turns 18 and they have graduated high school.

It is in the legislation. Read it before you respond. capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/…/HB00393I.htm

They may not need to pay after the recipient is 19.

To all those people that wanted so desperately to get people to leave Reddit and come here, congratulations. It’s apparently working. Good job.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

For someone who is complaining about people’s reading comprehension, it’s kind of weird that you seem to have missed what the comments are actually saying they don’t understand.

Coehl ,
@Coehl@programming.dev avatar

I’m referring to posts like this lemmy.world/comment/3061756

If people are just asking questions about what it says, I have no issue with that. But I saw none of that at the time of my post.

mercano ,
@mercano@lemmy.world avatar

Really, shouldn’t this apply to all manslaughter and murder cases?

3laws ,

Totally. But the US is obsessed with punishment rather than reparations.

alienzx ,

And rehabilitation

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

More like obsessed with superficiality

toxicbubble ,

it’s all theatre, take something people love (children, mothers) & something people hate (criminals), now they can justify passing any legislation & continue expanding their control over time without fixing the underlying issues like lack of public transportation. but hey, guns are legal…FOR THE CHILDREN!

LifeInMultipleChoice ,

Should, yes. Does it already exist, yes. It can just be time consuming. Kill one parent surviving parent or guardian or state placed guardian is then supposed to go to civil court and a judge will rule the person pays support. Some would say that is costly but the court fees will end up having to be paid by the person the judge rules against. (Which many attorneys will pick up pro bono because no judge is going to rule that killing a parent(s) didnt cause at LEAST financial/ impact on the child/family.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Maybe. You would basically be created a two-tiered system of punishment. If you kill me you have to pay for my kids, if you kill someone childless you don’t pay.

I am not sure what the repercussions of that would be.

Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow ,

The fact someone can kill anyone, intentionally or not, and expect to be free soon enough to get a job and pay child support is nuts.

AphoticDev ,
@AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

The real headline here is Texas being in the news for something that isn’t shitty.

TlarTheStorm ,
@TlarTheStorm@lemmy.world avatar

It’s new law day here in Texas. Typically because of the weird way our state works, laws passed in the once every other year legislature only becomes effective on September 1st of that year.

So good stuff like this, the tampon tax thing, etc yes it’s all good headline news.

But the vile, anti queer, christostate nonsense goes live now too.

brygphilomena ,

Or until the child graduates from high school, “whichever is later.”

So don’t graduate and get paid for life?

netburnr ,
@netburnr@lemmy.world avatar

You aren’t too good at reading are you?

JPAKx4 ,

Later implies that both must occur to be free of child support

HellAwaits ,

Seems like you’re not, Bucko.

Coehl , (edited )
@Coehl@programming.dev avatar

There are edit and even delete buttons. Give them a whirl.

TruTollTroll ,
@TruTollTroll@lemmy.world avatar

Serious question, how do they do that, while in prison with no residual income? And if they were already near broke, how does this work?

KLISHDFSDF ,
@KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml avatar

it probably won’t hurt in most cases. BUT if your parents get murdered by someone with money, you’re at least getting some kinda support.

Pyr_Pressure ,

I would like for someone to try and get corporations to pay child support when one of their workers dies from neglectful maintenance or dangerous policies.

CarbonIceDragon ,
@CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

That doesn’t seem like a bad thing per se- but I do somewhat worry that this would simply lead to corporations refusing to hire parents, firing people who become parents (for “some other reason” if necessary), or at least preferentially hiring people deemed unlikely to have children.

TheOakTree ,

Why do I get the feeling that corporations would excuse said selective hiring as “green?”

bobman ,

Seize their assets and auction them off. Use the proceeds to fund the reparations.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

And if their assets are basically worthless too?

bobman ,

Then yeah, there’s nothing to do besides garnish their wages after they get out (if they get out.)

Still, it’s something that they should do if they can.

xc2215x ,

Good move by Texas.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

So...if you actually want to have fewer drunk driving incidents...and fewer crashes in general, we know how. You have less car centric infrastructure. Of course youre gonna have drunk driving when bars have required minimum parking when being built.

hh93 ,

Yeah this won’t stop a single accident - and it will probably not result in more money for the kids, too since many people won’t be able to pay from prison

Blapoo ,

But at least the government won’t have to drop a penny. Working as intended!

relative_iterator ,
@relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works avatar

Wow good job Texas! What if they never graduate high school though 😂

kn33 ,

I read the bill. It cuts off at 19 regardless.

relative_iterator ,
@relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ahh figured it would cover that lol. Thanks!

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