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.”

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Rambi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • phx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • lntl@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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