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.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 292 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Damn Texas. Sometimes you do manage to do something right.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 108 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    This just seems like theater. What if you disable the parents such that they can't support their kid? You slip through?

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

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 108 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Also, why just drunk driving? Why not you pay child support for murder?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 112 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Really, shouldn’t this apply to all manslaughter and murder cases?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 99 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    you know what prevents drunk driving? proper public transit

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 93 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 2 years ago (35 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 35 child comments
  • load more comments (35 replies)
    [–] 65 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

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

    This is just a debt trap. It won't help any kids because the kids can't get money from someone who is in prison, but it does make it harder for people who commit crimes to pay their debt and rejoin society. If the law specifically gave these support payments priority over fines payable to the state I'd feel differently, but the real point of this is to just pile debt on someone who can't earn money.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 48 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Turning jail time into spending money looks a lot like fines being a cost of business. A CEO of a big company could just kill a child's parents and not even feel the sting, as long as he's drunk and his weapon is his car.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 44 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    So now drunk drivers have an incentive to claim it was intentional, not accidental.

    The overall idea here is excellent, but it is fundamentally nonsensical to only apply it to drunk drivers and not all killers.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You think first degree murder would be a better financial decision than manslaughter?

    Agreed with your second sentence. Though I think the state should step in to help the kids in either instance. If they're convicted and are in prison it's trying to get blood from a stone at that point.

    This is Texas though. This isn't about helping anyone it's just grandstanding for votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago

    Actually one of the few sane things that Texas has done.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    Fuck drunk drivers

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Or until the child graduates from high school, "whichever is later."

    So don't graduate and get paid for life?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Just know, all humans are terrible drivers (myself included). A drunk driver is like putting a toddler being the wheel.

    We need better public transit. Period. Get cars out of human hands.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 25 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I’ll always be in favor of heavily penalizing drunk driving and improving enforcement to dissuade people from drunk driving.

    That said, it would be nice if we could take a page out of the books of other countries where children and parents don’t have to rely on child support to ensure children get the means necessary to survive.

    The current system furthers this game of hot potato which leads to children having a poor relationship with one of their parents and growing up in poverty, all in the name “personal responsibility” and “muh tax payer moneys” while children end up being collateral damage.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Correction, this is Texas, so you'll have to pay if you're poor or not right wing politically connected. If you can afford proper counsel, you won't.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    I mean sure, but they still should go for a long time to jail.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This, unfortunately, makes hit and run the most viable strategy in Texas.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    will it turn into a chinese model where the driver is now looking to run over the kids too?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    makes sense lmao drunk drivers are evil

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›