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.”

  • Bipta@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      121
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        106
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            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

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        How are they making money to pay for child support?

        Doesn’t matter. Seize their assets and auction them off. Use the proceeds to fund the reparations.

        It’s not that difficult to think of solutions if you, you know, want to.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So… even if they have assets we shouldn’t seize them because… what?

            Some people might not?

        • caffinatedone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, if they have a family and kids, I guess they’re on the street now? The parent involved is likely going to prison, so they’re not going to be able to provide support. This is “tough on crime” theater that would likely do nothing but cause more harm.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What do you mean? Do you expect the kids to just take care of themselves while their caretaker is in prison?

            Lol. Come on man. Use your brain.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

        • pqdinfo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree, pleading up to guilty is dumb. But I do have to question the wisdom of this law anyway: Do you not normally go to prison for manslaughter in Texas? According to https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/texas-manslaughter-laws.html you can end up in prison for up to 20 years (though it can be as little as two, but I’d assume it’s not two in the case of drunk driving.) Intoxication manslaughter is also usually accompanied by a fine of up to $10,000.

          Even two years imprisonment for a felony will result in the felon (1) selling up all their possessions to pay for lawyers, etc, and (2) losing their jobs and being unable to get jobs for years afterwards. Something that’ll be made worse if they’re on the hook for child support they’re unable to pay for and therefore will, I assume, be unable to get a driver’s license, in a state where driving is mandatory.

          So, other than theater, what is this for? Making child support “someone else’s problem” so the state can avoid helping people in dire financial circumstances by pointing at someone else and saying “Well they should be paying for it.”?

          I appreciate a lot of people are posting here agreeing with the bill because it sounds like something they should support. But it’s either not thought out, or the intentions behind it are rotten. Given it’s Texas, the latter seems probable.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Touché. Maybe to bring it back into the realms of ‘worth keeping’, it could be means-tested (so of you have assets then this stands and you gotta liquefy that wealth, but if you’re essentially unable to pay its recognized as a barrier to rehabilitation?)

            I’m being incredibly naive here, I know…

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t matter. Seize their assets and auction them off. Use the proceeds to fund the reparations.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Person has a bad day after losing their job or some other real life event like losing their mother. Accidentally runs a red light and kills someone. Officer says they were drunk. Breathilizer says 0.0 and person says they were sober. Poof. They go to prison, and you are now asking someone to go to their house, sieze all their assets and throw their children and spouse out into homelessness because of an accident that involved one of the MANY incidents that occur where people get charged with DUI/DWI without being intoxicated.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think you’re manufacturing fantastical situations because you want to agree with the crowd.

              Gonna block you now. That was a bunch of gibberish.

              • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Go live in your manufactured world that cops are dealing out fair and unbias judgement against citizens. If you need me to show you where it says they are allowed to give you a dui without you failing a breathilizer/ blood test I can

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Murder is not near the problem of driving. Few people murder, but many have accidents.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      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.

      • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re completely right. People just want to keep their blinders on and hate on this because it’s Texas. They don’t want to think critically and acknowledge a state that often does the wrong thing can also do the right thing.

        I guarantee there wouldn’t be as many critical comments if this were New York or California.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fucking hate Texas and I came here to support this move. (Most) People are less shitty than you suggest.

          • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, you’re right. It’s just disheartening how many people view this as a bad thing even though it’s clearly a step in the right direction.

            I’m sure the people that are against this are much more likely to voice their opinions than those that support it.

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

        In your metaphor b is closer to c than a so it’s a good thing. But if b is on a one way street to a cliff it doesn’t make it a good thing to drive there.

    • Pwrupdude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      If someone is unable to pay the restitution because they’re incarcerated, they’re expected to make payments no “later than the first anniversary of the date,” of their release, the law says.

      From the article. So seems like they thought of that too

      • Thewheeeeeeeeeel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So how long do you get for manslaughter in the us? 8 years? So at best the child gets support like 9 years later and only if the person manages to get a good enough job… Maybe the life of a child shouldn’t be a lottery but just backed by the state

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’re saying that people can just ignore debt imposed and tracked by the government?