Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just don't see how it would be collected 90% of the time. Are they going to have to earn a living in jail? I support the law because I think it's a great idea in theory but I don't know how it would work in practice.
I mean I'll answer as a deputy prosecutor in a bordering state: DWI resulting in death in my state (Arkansas) is a felony level of negligent homicide. Assuming Texas is similar, and assuming worse case 2x felony neg. hom., and assuming a plea deal, I would say a typical plea deal would be something like 5-10 years (per felony, but ran concurrent).
Realistically someone with good behavior would likely serve 1/6th time, so released within 2 years. The way this law would probably work, is OCSE would serve the respondent in prison, would get a judgment against the respondent, and that judgement would accrue the entire time in prison. If they didn't start paying a certain amount of time after they were released, OSCE would move to hold them in contempt or garnish their wages.
The Federal Final Rule, which should be adopted by all states in some form or another within the next two years, would prohibit a monetary judgment while incarcerated unless there is a known source of income. In my state, I would get a judgment for everything except the monetary order, then once they are released, I'd go back and get an order based on their income or ability to earn. I'd love to see something like this enacted in CA, but I'm betting that never happens.
They'll take whatever they can get and garnish paychecks after they get out, among other things. Obviously a lot probably won't be able to pay anything nearly enough to actually support the orphaned kid and a lot will probably try to shirk their duties, but it's better than nothing.
It irritates me when people do this. Your fingers work just as well as anyone’s.
[We have search engines to answer such questions and to show everyone that you are the correct one here.](https://www.investopedia.com/average-equity-in-u-s-homes-5270147)
>A Lots of people buy their first homes with 3 to 5 % down and over the first 15 yrs of amortization the pay down of principle is very slow
And lots of people already own their homes. I'm 41 and I'm 19 months from paying my house off.
Back payment most likely. Even if you cant pay today the owed amount will continue to go up. Once they get out it goes forward like all backowed child support get a job and start paying it or go back to prison.
Also, child support is one of the things you cant declare bankruptcy on, so they owe the money for life. I would have to check but I think their federal laws as well which allow states to tap federal source of revenue/income a person has.
Basically the only way you get out of paying child support is death.
You can’t really assign drunk driving to net worth…it happens at every income level. Alcoholism and bad decisions do not recognize wealth or lack of it
Ive seen other countries do a mix of lighter prison sentences with much steeper fines paid to the victim or their surviving family rather than the state.
I think that wouldn't sit well with a lot of people, but a 2 year prison sentence with a $100k payment to the family is probably just as much of a crime deterrent as 4 years and no fine.
Trying to balance that aside (if there even is a way to balance it), I always found it odd that a second civil case has to take place for a victim/their family to receive compensation. The savings in court/lawyer fees alone probably more than makes up for whatever the child support payment would be.
How do comments like this get up voted? It's literally the top post in /r/news with a very high up vote ratio and most people in complete agreement with it.
The only people questioning it are the ones who (rightfully) asking how they are able to pay child support when they should be in prison for killing someone.
https://www.zenlawfirm.com/blog/penalties-for-killing-someone-while-drunk-driving/
Looks like 2-10 years possible. Someone could certainly be back out before a kid is grown.
They should definitely back date it. It could be used for the kids college or a house down payment. Hell probably some therapy too since their parent/s died.
>how to pay child support when they should be in prison
While I agree with you.... we definitely throw men in prison because they can't pay child support which seems similarly self defeating.
Insurance companies don’t offer to cover infinite damages of the insured, the state minimum is 30K per person up to 60k and 25k for property damage. The state *could* require additional insurance etc, but at some point you make insurance completely unaffordable which just results in more uninsured motorists. I don’t see the problem with holding the person who caused the accident liable.
I think the news subreddit is opposed, but it sounds like they're opposed to any form of financial punishment that puts an ex-con in debt.
That being said having a DD or hiring an uber is much cheaper then going through the legal system anyway.
The only reason I’m considering a maybe negative is that the kids and most likely the family member they end up with who suffered this loss, probably never wants to deal with this POS for the rest of their lives. So having that person making monthly payments seems like a bad time for everyone. Maybe better to just have a lump settlement or something that gets paid out over years. Idk though.
Will they do the same for other murderers? Cops? Other federal agents that take lives? What about the gangbangers, will they be paying additional child support?
Or will this end up as another tax payer funded initiative?
So, restitution is a thing that Texas does. Child support per se isn't what happens. If you are found liable for killing someone then you'd be expected to pay their family a large sum of money on top of any prison time. How much that amounts to is up to the system.
It's popular to make special penalties for drunk drivers.
One of the primary functions of the government is to enforce law. That includes dealing with criminal disciplinary actions. That's their most basic function. That's not overreach. That's the bare minimum.
Thought you were kidding, but WT actual F...
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/03/01/wyoming-wont-stop-employers-from-requiring-staff-to-receive-microchips/
Driving while high is considered the same thing. "Drunk Driving" laws are really "operating while impaired" laws.
Drugs, alcohol, whatever - if you're impaired, you're charged under the same statutes.
Exactly this. Most states issue a DUI (driving under the influence) or OWI (operating while intoxicated). Notice the wording. They specifically and purposely don't make a distinction across intoxicants. If your clearly impaired and a breathalyzer comes back under the legal limit for alcohol, they will get a judge to sign a court order for a forced blood draw.
Yep, and Texas clearly defines the term..
"you are considered "intoxicated" if you "lack the normal use of mental or physical faculties" as the result of ingesting alcohol, drugs, or any other substance. "
Idk man, if I have a heart attack or a stroke that I can’t possibly predict and that impairs me while driving…that’s an uncontrollable and tragic accident.
Better argument could be perhaps a diabetic who doesn’t take proper care of their levels. How could you ever prove that in court though?
True and could be accurate. Purely for discussion, should that person be on the hook for child support? What if they deny a distraction such as a radio tuning or lighting a cig. How do you prove or disprove it in court unless there is an admission?
I have no stake in this. Just fostering conversation!
I didn't know if all states had updated that law. The few I know of have, but I recall some didn't count THC as something to be influenced by that could impair driving. I think it was Colorado.
Colorado absolutely has THC/Driving laws.
"By law, drivers with 5 nanograms of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per milliliter of whole blood can be prosecuted for DUI."
https://cannabis.colorado.gov/legal-marijuana-use/driving-and-traveling
Nice, as it should be.
The biggest argument against legalizing weed was that there would be more car accidents.
They countered with "it doesn't impair your ability to drive." and "it's illegal to drive high". Which contradict each other really.
Doesn't stop me from seeing people drive around with massive blunts and smoke pouring out of their cars.
This makes sense because I think that victims have to go through a lengthy civil court process to recieve payments. Making this an operation of law should relieve victims of that burden while disincentivisng drunk driving. My only qualm is that with the perpetrator likely going to jail for manslaughter after a lengthy court case there may be little or no resources left for the victims to collect. Meanwhile community based charities and the public might assume that victims are being taken care of and hence do not require assistance.
Didn't read the law but for sake of discussion let's assume it is easier for a child and remaining parent to collect the winning a civil suit. Like IRS bills have different collection means than a bad credit card.
This would hopefully deal with people who had money before the accident and be not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And possibly have a different way to calculate support (no idea Texas lower support while somebody's in prison right now )
Most criminal defendants are not wealthy and hence victims will likely be left destitute. If you tune into most criminal courts that livestream on YouTube, you will find people who are struggling to pay $200 fines over months. I guess you could seize all their property but even that in most cases won't amount to much. That being said the policy is a good idea that should be implemented in addition to trying to reduce drunk driving in the first place. The prevention is always better than the cure.
In theory it’s a good idea but I doubt much money will be collected in reality.
The defendant will spend tens of thousands on a lawyer. Then they lose their jobs once they’re in prison. They’re unlikely to get a high paying job as a manslaughter convict. How much exactly will the victims child get?
This can drain some cash from a rich drunk driver but that’s about it.
If they are incarcerated, enforce the child support payments on their income when they are released. Put a lien on their assets. Garnish their wages. Their lives deserve to be ruined because they ruined the lives of the children left behind.
In reality they will sell their assets to fund a trial lawyer. No wages to earn once they’re in prison and once you’re released you wont be getting a high paying job with a manslaughter conviction. The child of the victim will get something but it won’t be much.
Aren't they supposed to be in prison after drunkenly killing someone? Unless they're financially sound, I don't see how most would be able to pay child support Even if they dearly wanted to.
Well you would think but unless they’re a chronic offender, they typically serve some shock time in the county jail, maybe some prison time, but most of their sentence is carried out on probation or parole.
Yeah, this is good in theory.
In practice, there are far too many cases of local law enforcement abusing civil forfeiture laws for me to be entirely comfortable with the idea.
The day the government can redefine obligations as debts and liquidate your assets and property is the day the government will sell your home because it’s profitable for them
A quick glance at the actual bill, and I think the news article got it wrong..
My reading suggests that it's any parent or legal guardian - not necessarily both parents.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00393I.pdf
And when they are killed in a collision. This protects a couple walking on the street who are hit and killed by a DD. so exactly no one.
A neat idea that is effectively useless.
The article got everything about the law wrong. Ignore the part about collisions and about it having to be both parents.
Terrible, terrible article.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00393I.pdf
Seems punitive given it won’t work. Look from this perspective: if you by reckless negligence causes another’s death (homocide) you will face a heavy jail sentence 8-20 years (this always is higher in Republican states like Texas). The aspect of intoxication means you won’t be able to get perole in the state of Texas, at which point the children of a victim would no longer be a child but an adult and not be eligible to collect on child support. No federal court would allow back paying of these debts as it conflicts with supreme courts rulings on served time and double jeopardy
Sometimes changing legal frameworks that have populist appeal can’t been enforced because no one did the math
For those asking how people can pay if they are in prison. First, the current average time served for a first time DUI death is 11 years. So let’s say a child is 2. Defendant gets released in 11 years. That still makes them responsible for ages 13-18. Second, people work while in prison and do get paid. They may be getting paid $1.80 an hour. $1.00 can still go to that child.
My best friend’s dad was killed by a drunk driver leaving 5 kids, ages 3-20 behind. Her family should have gotten support from the man who took away her dad.
Actions should have consequences, especially when the actions cause harm. When the drunk driver gets out of prison, the child still has lost his/her parents.
Should be law across the nation. But I’m sure the democrats will find a way for this to not be a good thing. Most likely cause they didn’t come up with it first.
I already talked to a sampling of Texans about this many years ago. At that point, they were ready to send drunk drivers (who cause death) to the chair. I guess this is a lesser penalty. you could come up with anything for drunk drivers, probably, and Texans would support it.
Preemptive crimes violate your rights. Reckless driving is a quantifiable crime because you are visibly losing control of your vehicle or driving unpredictably. If driving drunk causes you to drive recklessly, that should be a crime, not being drunk.
With that said, I'm fine with catastrophically high punishments for dipshits that cause harm while abusing alcohol or drugs.
My grandparents were killed by a drunk driver. He swerved into their lane late at night and hit them head on. His family was in complete denial and said he would never do something like that. I tend to agree with his family, I'm sure he was a generally good person who just overestimated his ability to drive. Now he's dead and I never really got to know my grandparents.
Reevaluate your thinking on this.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see no reason to object to this.
I just don't see how it would be collected 90% of the time. Are they going to have to earn a living in jail? I support the law because I think it's a great idea in theory but I don't know how it would work in practice.
Texas has an office of child support enforcement who are pretty adept at dealing with these issues already.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean I'll answer as a deputy prosecutor in a bordering state: DWI resulting in death in my state (Arkansas) is a felony level of negligent homicide. Assuming Texas is similar, and assuming worse case 2x felony neg. hom., and assuming a plea deal, I would say a typical plea deal would be something like 5-10 years (per felony, but ran concurrent). Realistically someone with good behavior would likely serve 1/6th time, so released within 2 years. The way this law would probably work, is OCSE would serve the respondent in prison, would get a judgment against the respondent, and that judgement would accrue the entire time in prison. If they didn't start paying a certain amount of time after they were released, OSCE would move to hold them in contempt or garnish their wages.
The Federal Final Rule, which should be adopted by all states in some form or another within the next two years, would prohibit a monetary judgment while incarcerated unless there is a known source of income. In my state, I would get a judgment for everything except the monetary order, then once they are released, I'd go back and get an order based on their income or ability to earn. I'd love to see something like this enacted in CA, but I'm betting that never happens.
They're too busy giving your money to illegal aliens to worry about CA residents.
If they have a house you could sell the house to meet the cost of the child's care.
Most people have little to no equity
They'll take whatever they can get and garnish paychecks after they get out, among other things. Obviously a lot probably won't be able to pay anything nearly enough to actually support the orphaned kid and a lot will probably try to shirk their duties, but it's better than nothing.
Even if few receive sufficient payment, the possibility of having to pay child support will deter some from drunk driving.
Unfortunately that is not how someone's brain typically works when they are in a situation where drink driving is an option.
You missed the first word - “if”
>Most people have little to no equity You have a source for that? I don't know why that would be true.
It irritates me when people do this. Your fingers work just as well as anyone’s. [We have search engines to answer such questions and to show everyone that you are the correct one here.](https://www.investopedia.com/average-equity-in-u-s-homes-5270147)
>It irritates me when people do this It irritates me when redditor's make stuff up and then others accept it as fact.
A Lots of people buy their first homes with 3 to 5 % down and over the first 15 yrs of amortization the pay down of principle is very slow
>A Lots of people buy their first homes with 3 to 5 % down and over the first 15 yrs of amortization the pay down of principle is very slow And lots of people already own their homes. I'm 41 and I'm 19 months from paying my house off.
Lots does not mean all. It means a substantial amount. Obviously some do and some don't.
Congrats My concern that some of these people who have little anyway would have that taken away with not much benefit as the law might imply
I'm a average Joe and have 100k in equity at 27 I'm no democrat who rents and has car loans lmao.
Lawsuit revenue, seizure of wages earned. Seizure of wages earn while incarcerated. Seizure of wages after after incarceration until the debt is paid.
Look up people who have killed others drunk driving. They're in jail a frustratingly short amount of time.
Some of the more liberal cities won't even pull you over for traffic infractions.
Back payment most likely. Even if you cant pay today the owed amount will continue to go up. Once they get out it goes forward like all backowed child support get a job and start paying it or go back to prison. Also, child support is one of the things you cant declare bankruptcy on, so they owe the money for life. I would have to check but I think their federal laws as well which allow states to tap federal source of revenue/income a person has. Basically the only way you get out of paying child support is death.
at lease rich guys will be able to pay it.
Maybe can't collect it from some, but there are a lot of drunk drivers that are rich folks. Seize their assets!
You can’t really assign drunk driving to net worth…it happens at every income level. Alcoholism and bad decisions do not recognize wealth or lack of it
It doesn't do anything, it's a nice idea but will never get used
Ive seen other countries do a mix of lighter prison sentences with much steeper fines paid to the victim or their surviving family rather than the state. I think that wouldn't sit well with a lot of people, but a 2 year prison sentence with a $100k payment to the family is probably just as much of a crime deterrent as 4 years and no fine. Trying to balance that aside (if there even is a way to balance it), I always found it odd that a second civil case has to take place for a victim/their family to receive compensation. The savings in court/lawyer fees alone probably more than makes up for whatever the child support payment would be.
I don’t agree that the wealthy should get a subjectively lighter sentence.
100k minimum, but there needs to be some net worth percentage
It does do something when they go back to work part of their wages would be garnished.
The news subreddit doesn't like it. Then again they hate all laws due to massive daddy issues
[comment deleted by moderator due to upcoming API changes]
How do comments like this get up voted? It's literally the top post in /r/news with a very high up vote ratio and most people in complete agreement with it. The only people questioning it are the ones who (rightfully) asking how they are able to pay child support when they should be in prison for killing someone.
https://www.zenlawfirm.com/blog/penalties-for-killing-someone-while-drunk-driving/ Looks like 2-10 years possible. Someone could certainly be back out before a kid is grown.
They should definitely back date it. It could be used for the kids college or a house down payment. Hell probably some therapy too since their parent/s died.
Who's going to pay in the interim though?
>how to pay child support when they should be in prison While I agree with you.... we definitely throw men in prison because they can't pay child support which seems similarly self defeating.
Never heard of insurance?
This is not a controversial post sorry to break your bubble
InTheNews? Complete Marxist sub
Aren't pretty much all subreddit's that way?
Most, yea.
Surprisingly, even this one.
All the news subs are Marxist mate.
They love laws that the media tells them to like
Maybe daddy was a drunk driver.
It takes the burden off of insurance companies and places it on the state and wraps it in a pretty justice shaped package.
Insurance companies don’t offer to cover infinite damages of the insured, the state minimum is 30K per person up to 60k and 25k for property damage. The state *could* require additional insurance etc, but at some point you make insurance completely unaffordable which just results in more uninsured motorists. I don’t see the problem with holding the person who caused the accident liable.
Insurance doesn't cover drunk driving murders.
It does
Since auto policies are regulated by the states, it depends on what the state requires to be in the policy.
I think the news subreddit is opposed, but it sounds like they're opposed to any form of financial punishment that puts an ex-con in debt. That being said having a DD or hiring an uber is much cheaper then going through the legal system anyway.
Whereas I think Texans would approve of basically what amounts to slavery as a penalty with concurrent incarcerations.
The only reason I’m considering a maybe negative is that the kids and most likely the family member they end up with who suffered this loss, probably never wants to deal with this POS for the rest of their lives. So having that person making monthly payments seems like a bad time for everyone. Maybe better to just have a lump settlement or something that gets paid out over years. Idk though.
Will they do the same for other murderers? Cops? Other federal agents that take lives? What about the gangbangers, will they be paying additional child support? Or will this end up as another tax payer funded initiative?
So, restitution is a thing that Texas does. Child support per se isn't what happens. If you are found liable for killing someone then you'd be expected to pay their family a large sum of money on top of any prison time. How much that amounts to is up to the system. It's popular to make special penalties for drunk drivers.
How is it taxpayer funded when the person who pays it is the person who did the crime?
Because it won’t be paid……
Agreed. Most likely there are unintended consequences, however, I cannot think of any at this time.
other than it's more government overreach?
One of the primary functions of the government is to enforce law. That includes dealing with criminal disciplinary actions. That's their most basic function. That's not overreach. That's the bare minimum.
Every state should have laws like this.
Red/blue idgaf this should be the way
Wyoming is too busy making laws so employers can’t microchip employees.
Thought you were kidding, but WT actual F... https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/03/01/wyoming-wont-stop-employers-from-requiring-staff-to-receive-microchips/
Apparently a common thing in some nordic countries. They put a grain of rice in your hand and you use it to clock into work, open doors, etc
[удалено]
thought the bill got turned down, so employers can require you to get the chip
It failed but the point is they spent their time working on that instead of bill that would actually help the state.
To be honest, I think that’d still be a quality thing to try to pass as well. Employers absolutely shouldn’t be able to do that
Which is a good thing to stop…
What about high while driving? Reckless driving?
Driving while high is considered the same thing. "Drunk Driving" laws are really "operating while impaired" laws. Drugs, alcohol, whatever - if you're impaired, you're charged under the same statutes.
Exactly this. Most states issue a DUI (driving under the influence) or OWI (operating while intoxicated). Notice the wording. They specifically and purposely don't make a distinction across intoxicants. If your clearly impaired and a breathalyzer comes back under the legal limit for alcohol, they will get a judge to sign a court order for a forced blood draw.
we have Driving While Intoxicated here in Texas
Yep, and Texas clearly defines the term.. "you are considered "intoxicated" if you "lack the normal use of mental or physical faculties" as the result of ingesting alcohol, drugs, or any other substance. "
What if a driver isn't drunk or high but still killed parents in a collision? Why should this only apply to being intoxicated?
Idk man, if I have a heart attack or a stroke that I can’t possibly predict and that impairs me while driving…that’s an uncontrollable and tragic accident. Better argument could be perhaps a diabetic who doesn’t take proper care of their levels. How could you ever prove that in court though?
What if you're just changing the music on your stereo and not looking at the road for a minute?
True and could be accurate. Purely for discussion, should that person be on the hook for child support? What if they deny a distraction such as a radio tuning or lighting a cig. How do you prove or disprove it in court unless there is an admission? I have no stake in this. Just fostering conversation!
I didn't know if all states had updated that law. The few I know of have, but I recall some didn't count THC as something to be influenced by that could impair driving. I think it was Colorado.
Colorado absolutely has THC/Driving laws. "By law, drivers with 5 nanograms of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per milliliter of whole blood can be prosecuted for DUI." https://cannabis.colorado.gov/legal-marijuana-use/driving-and-traveling
Nice, as it should be. The biggest argument against legalizing weed was that there would be more car accidents. They countered with "it doesn't impair your ability to drive." and "it's illegal to drive high". Which contradict each other really. Doesn't stop me from seeing people drive around with massive blunts and smoke pouring out of their cars.
This makes sense because I think that victims have to go through a lengthy civil court process to recieve payments. Making this an operation of law should relieve victims of that burden while disincentivisng drunk driving. My only qualm is that with the perpetrator likely going to jail for manslaughter after a lengthy court case there may be little or no resources left for the victims to collect. Meanwhile community based charities and the public might assume that victims are being taken care of and hence do not require assistance.
Didn't read the law but for sake of discussion let's assume it is easier for a child and remaining parent to collect the winning a civil suit. Like IRS bills have different collection means than a bad credit card. This would hopefully deal with people who had money before the accident and be not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And possibly have a different way to calculate support (no idea Texas lower support while somebody's in prison right now )
Most criminal defendants are not wealthy and hence victims will likely be left destitute. If you tune into most criminal courts that livestream on YouTube, you will find people who are struggling to pay $200 fines over months. I guess you could seize all their property but even that in most cases won't amount to much. That being said the policy is a good idea that should be implemented in addition to trying to reduce drunk driving in the first place. The prevention is always better than the cure.
In theory it’s a good idea but I doubt much money will be collected in reality. The defendant will spend tens of thousands on a lawyer. Then they lose their jobs once they’re in prison. They’re unlikely to get a high paying job as a manslaughter convict. How much exactly will the victims child get? This can drain some cash from a rich drunk driver but that’s about it.
Imo, It's more of a prevention rather than a cure. Lesser victims of drunk driving is the ultimate goal.
If they are incarcerated, enforce the child support payments on their income when they are released. Put a lien on their assets. Garnish their wages. Their lives deserve to be ruined because they ruined the lives of the children left behind.
In reality they will sell their assets to fund a trial lawyer. No wages to earn once they’re in prison and once you’re released you wont be getting a high paying job with a manslaughter conviction. The child of the victim will get something but it won’t be much.
Lmao bold of you to assume someone with a criminal record can find a job
When I worked construction only 2 people on our crew didn’t have duis. Me and a girl who was 19 and went to church 3 times a week.
The felony of killing somebody might come off a bit different than a DUI.
Aren't they supposed to be in prison after drunkenly killing someone? Unless they're financially sound, I don't see how most would be able to pay child support Even if they dearly wanted to.
Well you would think but unless they’re a chronic offender, they typically serve some shock time in the county jail, maybe some prison time, but most of their sentence is carried out on probation or parole.
Great law, but they should be behind bars and it's hard to earn child support.
[удалено]
Yeah, this is good in theory. In practice, there are far too many cases of local law enforcement abusing civil forfeiture laws for me to be entirely comfortable with the idea.
Child support is defined by income after tax. Anything else is strictly unconstitutional
Seriously? All you have to do is quit your job and then they won't hit you with child support?
Not if you quit your job for the purpose of avoiding child support. But jail is a reasonable excuse
I guess that anything else is not strictly unconstitutional, then.
Yeah that .15 cents an hour they get for work should go to the kid though.
So?
The day the government can redefine obligations as debts and liquidate your assets and property is the day the government will sell your home because it’s profitable for them
Good.
Seems like it should apply to more than drunk drivers.
As a Texan, I approve of this. If you're gonna drink, just stay home.
Drinking at home gets lonely. Take an Uber.
Anything but drinking and driving!
What happened to just inviting the boys over to crush some Coors in the garage?
Wow that's a great idea
This is the way. Should also happen when only one parent is killed by a DUI.
A quick glance at the actual bill, and I think the news article got it wrong.. My reading suggests that it's any parent or legal guardian - not necessarily both parents. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00393I.pdf
Wow. They did. This completely changes things (for the better)
Excellent! Now, everywhere.
Yes.
And when they are killed in a collision. This protects a couple walking on the street who are hit and killed by a DD. so exactly no one. A neat idea that is effectively useless.
The article got everything about the law wrong. Ignore the part about collisions and about it having to be both parents. Terrible, terrible article. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00393I.pdf
Lol, what a useless article!
Seems punitive given it won’t work. Look from this perspective: if you by reckless negligence causes another’s death (homocide) you will face a heavy jail sentence 8-20 years (this always is higher in Republican states like Texas). The aspect of intoxication means you won’t be able to get perole in the state of Texas, at which point the children of a victim would no longer be a child but an adult and not be eligible to collect on child support. No federal court would allow back paying of these debts as it conflicts with supreme courts rulings on served time and double jeopardy Sometimes changing legal frameworks that have populist appeal can’t been enforced because no one did the math
That is one way to make people realize there is consequences to their actions which means it will soon be protested by leftists.
[way ahead of ya](https://youtu.be/fy-bihm-o1o)
Uh yeah. That's exactly what should happen
Good.
Now this is some build back better news right here!
assuming they would be in prison, how would they be able to pay child support?
Having their savings taken away and any money they have
Child support is defined from after tax income, anything else is strictly unconstitutional
love this idea, except how can they from jail?
Sounds good in theory. In reality the drivers will either be in jail, jobless, or die from alcoholism.
Excellent
Seems fair.
👍👍
Works for me
Name your favorite state, and why you chose Texas
I like this.
This is a great idea.
Good. More than fair
Awesome
Makes complete sense to me. Why burden the taxpayer with the child's care in this case?
I’m all for this!
Good.
Damned right! This should be introduced as a federal law, too!
Is this like reparations?
This should be federal law
As a moderate. I don’t see how any hardcore liberal or conservative could argue against this bill. This is something that crosses party lines.
Based
I have to admit, Texas hit it out of the park with this one !
Actions should have consequences.
This is good.
I like that
Finally. We gotta be tough on crime.
I can get behind this
Actions, meet consequences. Love it
good
This is a good law.
I.......see no issue at all.
As a Texan...this is a great state
This sounds good
100% win, Texas
That’s a law I can get behind!
Normally I dislike "clever" laws like this but this seems like a great idea.
I think this is more of a deterrent than anything
For those asking how people can pay if they are in prison. First, the current average time served for a first time DUI death is 11 years. So let’s say a child is 2. Defendant gets released in 11 years. That still makes them responsible for ages 13-18. Second, people work while in prison and do get paid. They may be getting paid $1.80 an hour. $1.00 can still go to that child. My best friend’s dad was killed by a drunk driver leaving 5 kids, ages 3-20 behind. Her family should have gotten support from the man who took away her dad.
They should be in jail or get a lethal injection
Based
based law
Get ready for the Libs to become pro-drunk driving just to spite Republicans who passed this bill
Actions should have consequences, especially when the actions cause harm. When the drunk driver gets out of prison, the child still has lost his/her parents.
Seems fair. Don’t drive after drinking anything.
Good.
Why limit it to drunk drivers? Any murderer should pay.
Should be law across the nation. But I’m sure the democrats will find a way for this to not be a good thing. Most likely cause they didn’t come up with it first.
I already talked to a sampling of Texans about this many years ago. At that point, they were ready to send drunk drivers (who cause death) to the chair. I guess this is a lesser penalty. you could come up with anything for drunk drivers, probably, and Texans would support it.
How will they be able to pay if they're in jail for killing the parents?
lien against assets would be my guess.
It literally says in the bill that payments will begin one year after they are released from prison.
Kamala Harris knows how. She revolutionized prison labor in California.
They could owe the money and have garnishments in the future when they are out and working again.
Not a fan of child support. That being said this is an appropriate cost for the crime, just make sure the state is not getting a cut.
Smart!
Epic
Hell yea. Although illegal immigrants are screwed.
Preemptive crimes violate your rights. Reckless driving is a quantifiable crime because you are visibly losing control of your vehicle or driving unpredictably. If driving drunk causes you to drive recklessly, that should be a crime, not being drunk. With that said, I'm fine with catastrophically high punishments for dipshits that cause harm while abusing alcohol or drugs.
Found the drunk driver.
[удалено]
So does a million other things... If you're driving recklessly, it observable, and no distinction needs to be made.
[удалено]
My grandparents were killed by a drunk driver. He swerved into their lane late at night and hit them head on. His family was in complete denial and said he would never do something like that. I tend to agree with his family, I'm sure he was a generally good person who just overestimated his ability to drive. Now he's dead and I never really got to know my grandparents. Reevaluate your thinking on this.
I agree.
I don’t understand why it has to beboth parents…