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.”

13 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

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”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Damn. You found the loophole.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

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.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wow… 6 upvotes and 6 downvotes…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

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

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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

permalink
report
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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 !

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is where it needs to start.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 22K

    Posts

  • 553K

    Comments