1607
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lukzak@lemmy.ml 288 points 1 year ago

Damn Texas. Sometimes you do manage to do something right.

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 105 points 1 year ago

This just seems like theater. What if you disable the parents such that they can't support their kid? You slip through?

[-] gravalicious@lemmy.world 118 points 1 year ago

It's theater. People go to prison for intoxication manslaughter. How are they making money to pay for child support? What kind of job will they really get after getting out of prison for essentially murder?

[-] radix@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago

A cynical person might even say this is an attempt by the state and insurance companies to justify not having any sort of security net for victims' families. If one person can be held financially responsible for the kids, why should anyone else have to step in?

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago

That is exactly what it is, aimed at drunk drivers first because everyone will be on board with that demographic first. Then it will be expanded over time.

[-] radix@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -- H.L. Mencken

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] BanjoShepard@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Also, why just drunk driving? Why not you pay child support for murder?

[-] flipht@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

Because if you get convicted of murder, you go to jail for a long period of time and never really make much money again, even if you get out.

Their child support payments would be like 16.53 per month.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Moving from A to B can still be a good thing to do, even if there are some remaining problems at B.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] mercano@lemmy.world 110 points 1 year ago

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

[-] 3laws@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago

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

[-] alienzx@feddit.nl 16 points 1 year ago

And rehabilitation

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

More like obsessed with superficiality

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 88 points 1 year ago

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

[-] TlarTheStorm@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] wishthane@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

Punishing drunk drivers is well-deserved, but as long as car-dependent infrastructure encourages drunk driving, it is considerably more difficult to actually decrease the rate of it. Taking a taxi is expensive and being a DD is no fun, so people take stupid risks. If you know you can take public transit home, there's no reason to take such a risk at all.

load more comments (53 replies)
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] PickTheStick@ttrpg.network 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Bold of you to assume the CEO would be convicted

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

https://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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago

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

[-] 11181514@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

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

So don't graduate and get paid for life?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Mrjelly13@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

Fuck drunk drivers

[-] lazyvar@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

I’ll always be in favor of heavily penalizing drunk driving and improving enforcement to dissuade people from drunk driving.

That said, it would be nice if we could take a page out of the books of other countries where children and parents don’t have to rely on child support to ensure children get the means necessary to survive.

The current system furthers this game of hot potato which leads to children having a poor relationship with one of their parents and growing up in poverty, all in the name “personal responsibility” and “muh tax payer moneys” while children end up being collateral damage.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TruTollTroll@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] blazera@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Matriks404@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Rusticus@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Eggcat@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

makes sense lmao drunk drivers are evil

[-] sederx@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
1607 points (99.1% liked)

News

23311 readers
1129 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS