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.”

  • AphoticDev
    link
    fedilink
    962 years ago

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

    • ⛈️TlarTheStorm ⛈️
      link
      fedilink
      302 years 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        192 years ago

        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…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          92 years ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              62 years ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        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.

      • terwn43lp
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      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.

  • Evie
    link
    fedilink
    262 years 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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          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.

    • Pyr
      link
      fedilink
      282 years 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        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.

    • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    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

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    652 years 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      362 years ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

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

            Ah ok than should do jail time.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 years ago

                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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 years 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      38
      edit-2
      2 years 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        102 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          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.

  • blazera
    link
    fedilink
    292 years 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.

    • hh93
      link
      fedilink
      152 years ago

      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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

    • GladiusB
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • GladiusB
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          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.

  • DreamButt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1052 years ago

    you know what prevents drunk driving? proper public transit

      • DreamButt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        422 years ago

        Fixing issues on the individual level is exactly why america is the way it is. Systems solutions exist

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          That’s not what I’m saying at all. That’s what you want me to say, but you are very incorrect.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Source of what? Drunk driving? That would probably be the individual, who knowing that the only mode of transportation for the night is to drive themselves and still decided to drink and then drive. Is that specific enough for you or are you still struggling with the concept?

    • fatalicus
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      From a country with proper public transport here (Norway): people still drive drunk with that, so having some proper punishment won’t hurt you.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        262 years ago

        Much FEWER people driving drunk, though, which is the point. Just because the solution doesn’t take the problem from 100 to 0 doesn’t mean that taking it to 20 or whatever isn’t beneficial.

        Also, “having some proper punishment won’t hurt you” is ridiculously wrong, based on the US having one of if not THE most punitive “justice” system and amongst the highest rates of crime of all western countries.

        Prevention and restorative justice works MUCH better at decreasing crime than revenge-based punishment.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          The highest incarceration and punishment rate in the world. If you went by the statistics, Americans are, “apparently,” 4.3 times more likely to be criminals than Chinese citizens, and it just gets worse from there, as every other country in the world has even fewer people incarcerated per 100,000 people.

          Our punishment system is broken.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 years ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    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.