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
        122
        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
          109
          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
              13
              ·
              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
          17
          ·
          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
              7
              ·
              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
              arrow-down
              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
          33
          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.

            • 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
              4
              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
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                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
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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
          6
          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?

    • WashedOver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like they have come along way since the grousing about the laws in the 80s coming into effect to ban a hard working person from enjoying a couple on the way home from work…

      https://youtube.com/shorts/BVk-_xhccK4?si=aMU_vedYJAYnKg0y

      Mix this in with the freeway speed limits are 80MPH on the highway in. Texas and often 65 for work zones on the smaller 2 lane highways. One can’t even go that fast on the I5 in Oregon with the Max being only 60 mph without construction delays. Can’t imagine adding a couple of drinks into the mix on the way home from a 12 hour day…

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      They did something that wasn’t evil, just stupid. I guess that is a win for texas. There are already systems to make people pay damages to other people without having the child go trough the indignity of getting child support from a murderer.

      • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indignity of receiving child support? Are you kidding?

        We’re talking about a child/children’s parent being killed, and you think it’s somehow unjust that they’re receiving the smallest amount of financial restitution from the person who killed them. I’d love to hear you explain how this is somehow stupid or insulting to a single parent and the surviving children.

        • Fisk400@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          All the words in my comment are important and you seem to have cut out a large part of them like some kind of weird ransome note.

          I said that damages, that means the same as financial restitution, should be and is payed out in these kinds of cases. There is already a legal framework for that and it doesn’t involve child support like the drunk driver is the kids new dad. It is a gross way of looking at it and if it is truly child support like child support is handled then they have suddenly introduced a criminal aspect to a system that doesn’t normally interface with the justice system.

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

            I am not going to oppose anything that gets more support to single parents and children who lose a parent.

            Being opposed to this because of what it’s called is a ridiculously short sighted view to take. I don’t care what this is called, but it is not gross, and it is not stupid.

        • Throwaway@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a disease related to America Bad Syndrome, called “Texas Bad Syndrome”

          To the afflicted, nothing Texas does is good.

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

            Bro, it’s a habit that was instilled in us by Texas literally always doing the bad thing.

            I’d have trouble believing I saw a unicorn if it ran by me too.