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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 76 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Punishing drunk drivers is well-deserved, but as long as car-dependent infrastructure encourages drunk driving, it is considerably more difficult to actually decrease the rate of it. Taking a taxi is expensive and being a DD is no fun, so people take stupid risks. If you know you can take public transit home, there's no reason to take such a risk at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Could take a Uber/Lyft.

    I deal with this issue, the big bus station and my house are divided by a highway. So me and my buddies go out it either has to be very local or I have to take a rideshare for a five minute drive home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    the big bus station and my house are divided by a highway

    Why does this have to be a thing? In my country they have bridges for pedestrians over the road, or underground passageway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I live in a city where taking an Uber or Lyft a few miles is like $25, maybe $50 at the last call surge. Unfortunately ride-sharing is a lot more expensive in cities that don't also have good transit, so I keep getting reminded that $25 is cheap for a ride share across any distance.

    Back when I used to go out drinking, catching the last train home or taking an Uber was my go-to choice. I don't drink much nowadays, but the rush home in an area without good transit infrastructure is still something I think about a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    not everyone can justify that every time they go out with friends

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If only there was something to do besides getting drunk. Or if only there was a way to stop drinking before you get hammered.

    Car dependent infrastructure has very little to do with people making bad decisions. Getting drunk shouldn’t be a given.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People can enjoy a drink responsibly, but you shouldn't drive even if you've only had a couple of drinks. Even a small amount of impairment is unacceptable when you're controlling a machine that could easily kill other people by mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’d argue anyone drinking and getting behind the wheel is making a conscious enough decision to make it murder. And I hope that more cases end up going that route of prosecution

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A little philosophical, but the drunk person who decides to drive is a different person than the sober person who decided to drink in the first place. Punishing the sober person for the decisions made by the drunk version of themselves is maybe misguided, except for as a deterrent that says "don't turn into a drunk person that can make stupid decisions"

    I'm not sure what the right answer is to this problem. Just some food for thought

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s just about the least convincing take I’ve ever heard. You can absolutely punish the person who made the decision to impair themselves beyond the ability to make rational decisions. They came from the same decision to get drunk by the sober person. A person who has a propensity to get drunk and drive is a danger to everyone and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I think you missed my point. My point is that the crime the sober person makes is deciding to become impaired. That's different from saying the sober person made a decision to drive drunk - the drunk person made that decision, not the sober person. There are 2 different people here in this scenario. Whether the law should treat it that way is a separate discussion. It would have some similarities with a "temporary insanity" defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I did not miss your point. I thought it was entirely unconvincing. The other person is the same person just with the disadvantage of being fucked up.

    Edit. Furthermore, I believe that the drunk self is just an amplified version of the sober self. My theory is that if your drunk self is capable of doing bad, so is your sober self.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hi friend, you do you, but it's the same idea as this: https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/peftk6/a_death_row_inmates_dementia_means_he_cant/

    You're of course free do disagree, but I've the sense that you haven't really considered the issue.

    I also disagree with the oft-repeated sentiment that the drunk self is an amplified version of the sober self. I think the simple reality is that alcohol changes our behaviors and judgments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Then I believe you’re an enabler and should probably rethink what you’re willing to tolerate

    Do you really think I haven’t considered your idea? It is utterly unconvincing. Dementia and drunkenness are not the same thing, and I’d say if a person can’t remember doing something heinous, that is not a compelling reason either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think dementia and acts committed while drunk have some similarities when it comes to assigning responsibility (and punishment), but yes they're not the same. One is involuntary, and the other is voluntary. The voluntary act to get drunk is what I called out in my first post. But after that initial act, I think the 2 scenarios are more alike than they are different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    This honestly reads like a defense of drunk driving, blaming the lack of infrastructure for bad decision.

    Edit: or something very close to that.

    But if you’re just saying we should design around stupid, then I guess I can agree there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You have to design around stupid, because this is the real world. People can only expected to be rational sometimes, and in aggregate, you need systems that expect people to take whatever is the most obvious or easy choice available to them, whether it's actually a good idea or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah yeah, public transit good, we know. STFU already. You fuckers are worse than vegans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It needs to be addressed. Or people are gonna keep voting for pro-car politicians

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yeah. "One more lane" is something that a lot of people unironically think, it's not just a meme, so trying to ensure that everybody knows how silly that is and how much harm it causes is one of the main ways that that line of thinking can be destroyed

  • source
  • parent