Drunk drivers in Texas who kill parents of a child will now be required to pay child support

[Ferguson97]

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/drunk-drivers-in-texas-who-kill-a-parents-of-a-child-will-now-be-required-to-pay-child-support-31969419

This is stupid tbh. I think we had a thread about this as a hypothetical issue a while back.

I don't have any sympathy for drunk drivers, but I don't see why a drunk driver who happens to kill two parents should be punished more harshly than a drunk driver who kills two elderly people, two college students, two parents whose children are all adults. All drunk driving is bad.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Great idea!  Good to see Texas doing something right for a change

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/drunk-drivers-in-texas-who-kill-a-parents-of-a-child-will-now-be-required-to-pay-child-support-31969419

This is stupid tbh. I think we had a thread about this as a hypothetical issue a while back.

I don't have any sympathy for drunk drivers, but I don't see why a drunk driver who happens to kill two parents should be punished more harshly than a drunk driver who kills two elderly people, two college students, two parents whose children are all adults. All drunk driving is bad.

Well a drunk driver who kills someone even someone with no children, or even severely injures someone is punished far more severely than a drunk driver who kills or injures no one.

[Aurelius2]

Good.

[Skill and Chance]

People whose negligence causes someone to be orphaned being compelled to provide for the orphan is unequivocally good. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As someone who thinks we go far too easy on drunk drivers, this seems like a rare Texas win.

[DaleCooper]

Drunk driving is not much better than murder, in my opinion.

[Santander]

Major potential for unintended consequences or plain ineffectiveness when people get out of prison nearly unemployable and are responsible for payments to the child of rich parents whose extended families would very likely have the resources to take care of them. This type of thing should be handled through insurance industry regulations, not direct restitution.

[Hammy]

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/drunk-drivers-in-texas-who-kill-a-parents-of-a-child-will-now-be-required-to-pay-child-support-31969419

This is stupid tbh. I think we had a thread about this as a hypothetical issue a while back.

I don't have any sympathy for drunk drivers, but I don't see why a drunk driver who happens to kill two parents should be punished more harshly than a drunk driver who kills two elderly people, two college students, two parents whose children are all adults. All drunk driving is bad.

Do you literally not grasp the concept that orphaned children need taken care of? Or is this some weak attempt to virtue signal by criticizing literally ANYTHING Texas does to score cheap internet points?

[Fuzzy Bear]

We're talking about people who will be sentenced to prison for a lengthy period of time.  I cannot think of a state in the Union where DUI-Manslaughter (or however the crime is styled) where state prison sentences aren't part of the punishment for such offenders.

The Child Support system already has enough people in their Debtor's Gulag.  People who face Writs of Bodily Attachment, or even criminal charges for failing to pay child support, even when the ability to pay is, arguably, not there.  We're not talking about willful deadbeats; we're talking about people who are unable to work enough to both pay their child support AND keep a roof over their head.  

For those in this situation who have means, they can (and are) civilly sued.  Those who are not are likely to be in a situation to where they will be behind the 8 ball for the rest of their lives.  I don't mean not being able to afford to buy a house; I'm talking about not being able to keep a roof over your head or afford to get to work (especially given that you will likely not have a valid driver license ever again).  If the end is more punishment, I believe that one who has completed a prison sentence has already been punished, and the punishment of probation or parole ought to be a punishment where one can succeed, and not be so oppressive as being a deliberate set-up for failure.  We are talking about a population that is, at least initially, far less employable than they were at the start of their sentence.

Let's also not forget that much "child support" is actually reimbursement to the government for social services rendered or benefits paid out.  It's about reducing the cost of government without cutting budgets or increasing taxes; it's about a plan for "revenue enhancement".  And it's unrealistic.  It's part of the unrealistic "taking responsibility" mantra that is, in fact, the attempts to get blood from stones under a different name.  That these people be required to serve prison time is one thing.  That these people be hit with child support after their release is stone-bleeding and buck-passing.  

[Ferguson97]

Do you literally not grasp the concept that orphaned children need taken care of?

Yes of course I understand this, I just don’t buy the argument that such responsibility should fall on the killer of that child’s parents, for the reasons that both Santander and Fuzzy laid out.

[lfromnj]

Fuzzy and Fergie arguing against the rest of the forum together.

[Sol]

Fuzzy and Fergie arguing against the rest of the forum together.

Even crazier, they're right.

[Dr. MB]

Drunk driving is not much better than murder, in my opinion.

Being reckless with the (fairly low) possibility that someone could be unintentionally killed or seriously injured is the same as intentionally killing someone?

Lots of people have driven drunk and hurt nobody.

[DaleCooper]

Drunk driving is not much better than murder, in my opinion.

Being reckless with the (fairly low) possibility that someone could be unintentionally killed or seriously injured is the same as intentionally killing someone?

Lots of people have driven drunk and hurt nobody.

Yes

[Dr. MB]

Drunk driving is not much better than murder, in my opinion.

Being reckless with the (fairly low) possibility that someone could be unintentionally killed or seriously injured is the same as intentionally killing someone?

Lots of people have driven drunk and hurt nobody.

Yes

Do you extend that to all types of recklessness? Why should something with only the possibility of a bad thing happening be viewed the same way?

[DaleCooper]

Drunk driving is not much better than murder, in my opinion.

Being reckless with the (fairly low) possibility that someone could be unintentionally killed or seriously injured is the same as intentionally killing someone?

Lots of people have driven drunk and hurt nobody.

Yes

Do you extend that to all types of recklessness? Why should something with only the possibility of a bad thing happening be viewed the same way?

I don't care to articulate any logical explanation for it, it's how I feel. I despise drunks to begin with, so once they start risking other people's lives I lose what little tolerance I had for them in the first place.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

This feels like a solution in search of a problem, if the drunk driver has sufficent assets then a standard civil tort law suit should financially compensate the orphan financially. If they don't then this doesn't change that you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I don't see how this isn't a useless virtue signaling bill that distracts from real solutions. You need cops to start doing serious traffics enforcement again and actually enforce punishments for traffic offenses.

[Sir Mohamed]

Broken clock TX moment?

[Aurelius2]

This is not something you have to worry about if you simply avoid driving drunk.

[Skill and Chance]

Fuzzy and Fergie arguing against the rest of the forum together.

Definitely some horseshoe theory going on here.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Fuzzy and Fergie arguing against the rest of the forum together.

Definitely some horseshoe theory going on here.

Fuzzy has always been pretty liberal on criminal justice issues

[Xing]

Good. Drunk driving is inexcusable, and we need to consider victims more in our criminal justice system.

[It’s so Joever]

This thread is the equivalent of the Biafran War in terms of coalitions.

[Badger]

We're talking about people who will be sentenced to prison for a lengthy period of time.  I cannot think of a state in the Union where DUI-Manslaughter (or however the crime is styled) where state prison sentences aren't part of the punishment for such offenders.

The Child Support system already has enough people in their Debtor's Gulag.  People who face Writs of Bodily Attachment, or even criminal charges for failing to pay child support, even when the ability to pay is, arguably, not there.  We're not talking about willful deadbeats; we're talking about people who are unable to work enough to both pay their child support AND keep a roof over their head.  

For those in this situation who have means, they can (and are) civilly sued.  Those who are not are likely to be in a situation to where they will be behind the 8 ball for the rest of their lives.  I don't mean not being able to afford to buy a house; I'm talking about not being able to keep a roof over your head or afford to get to work (especially given that you will likely not have a valid driver license ever again).  If the end is more punishment, I believe that one who has completed a prison sentence has already been punished, and the punishment of probation or parole ought to be a punishment where one can succeed, and not be so oppressive as being a deliberate set-up for failure.  We are talking about a population that is, at least initially, far less employable than they were at the start of their sentence.

Let's also not forget that much "child support" is actually reimbursement to the government for social services rendered or benefits paid out.  It's about reducing the cost of government without cutting budgets or increasing taxes; it's about a plan for "revenue enhancement".  And it's unrealistic.  It's part of the unrealistic "taking responsibility" mantra that is, in fact, the attempts to get blood from stones under a different name.  That these people be required to serve prison time is one thing.  That these people be hit with child support after their release is stone-bleeding and buck-passing.  

There is not one word you typed that is a material Point against this bill. Do the crime, pay the price.