this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
1668 points (99.0% liked)

News

23423 readers
4656 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 108 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

[–] gravalicious 122 points 1 year ago (2 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?

[–] radix 108 points 1 year 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?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 14 points 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

[–] afraid_of_zombies 5 points 1 year ago

Like how your insurance doesn't work if you get hurt on the job?

[–] BanjoShepard 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Then they pay it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] mo_ztt 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Moving from A to B can still be a good thing to do, even if there are some remaining problems at B.

[–] toasteecup 9 points 1 year ago

Better something than nothing, we can improve on something

[–] bhmnscmm 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] bhmnscmm 1 points 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.

[–] mo_ztt 1 points 1 year ago
[–] Thewheeeeeeeeeel 2 points 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 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Are you replying to the right person?