should drunk drivers that kill parents of younger kids have to pay child support?

[dead0man]

CBS

A Tennessee bill that would require drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a parent due to intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide has passed.

House Bill 1834 would require a person who is convicted of vehicular homicide to pay restitution in the form of child maintenance if their victim was the parent of a minor child. Each child of the victim would receive the restitution until they reach 18 years old and graduate high school.

The payments are similar to traditional child support, in which a parent pays the primary caregiver of their child until that child becomes a legal adult at 18.

The amount of the payments will be determined by the financial needs and resources of the child and their surviving parent or guardian, including the state, if the child is in the custody of the Department of Children's Services. Also similar to traditional child support, the standard of living the child is accustomed to will also be a factor in determining the amount of the payments.

If the defendant is incarcerated and unable to pay the required child maintenance, they have one year after their release from incarceration to begin paying.

[John Dule]

I'm not sure why this is being applied only to drunk driving.

[Del Tachi]

My gut reaction says "no."  Isn't this why we have wrongful death lawsuits? 

[Хahar 🤔]

My instinctive reaction is no. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the victims' rights movement and its attempt to transform justice from a public matter into a system of private restitution.

[Ferguson97]

No. This is one of those things that feels good to "YES PUNISH THE BAD PERSON" part of our lizard brain, but this policy makes almost zero sense if you think about it for more than five seconds.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. For a change it seems like TN has actually passed a decent bill.

No. This is one of those things that feels good to "YES PUNISH THE BAD PERSON" part of our lizard brain, but this policy makes almost zero sense if you think about it for more than five seconds.

What's wrong with this idea?

[Ferguson97]

Yes. For a change it seems like TN has actually passed a decent bill.

No. This is one of those things that feels good to "YES PUNISH THE BAD PERSON" part of our lizard brain, but this policy makes almost zero sense if you think about it for more than five seconds.

What's wrong with this idea?

Why single-out drunk driving? Should this apply to someone who was texting and driving? What about non-car-related deaths?

Why just child support? Should this apply to alimony as well if the victim's spouse was financially dependent on them? What about an elderly parent that they're caring for?

What happens if the personal is no longer able to afford child support or dies themselves? Why put this child's financial future at risk again?

The amount of the payments will be determined by the financial needs and resources of the child and their surviving parent or guardian, including the state, if the child is in the custody of the Department of Children's Services.

Why should a drunk driver be punished differently depending on who they kill? Under this law, the driver would be punished differently if he killed a poor person vs a rich person/person with no minor children. How does that make any sense? How does instituting an additional punishment, based entirely on luck, serve as a part of rehabilitative justice?

There are obviously many situations where the death of a parent could plunge his surviving family into poverty, and that's a tragedy. The answer is to strengthen our social safety net, not to create some weirdly specific child support program.

[Del Tachi]

Yes. For a change it seems like TN has actually passed a decent bill.

No. This is one of those things that feels good to "YES PUNISH THE BAD PERSON" part of our lizard brain, but this policy makes almost zero sense if you think about it for more than five seconds.

What's wrong with this idea?

The criminal justice system ought not to be a mechanism for financial restitution to private parties.  Crimes are prosecuted by the state because the goals of the penal system (i.e., incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.) are not the same as the goals of private prosecutors.  Privileging the perspectives of sympathetic victims in criminal proceedings tips the scales in favor of the state in a way that is inconsistent with the rights of the criminally accused.  Juries would be more apt to convict in drunk driving cases if it meant financial support for surviving children.     

[Blue3]

Most people this would apply to already have financial trouble, and need to divert more of their money towards their mental health and substance abuse disorders. Plus it’s usually very hard to get a decent job after a conviction like that. So payments probably wouldn’t be received, and it wouldn’t help either party. It’s just punitive and digs a deeper hole while probably making things worse.

[DaleCooper]

I don't think so, but drunk drivers who kill people should be locked away forever.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The group in the field I work with has said yes.

[bagelman]

If they are in the upper class then yes, but this really only applies to rich people having their money seized. For the lower classes, no.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Drunk drivers who kill people should not be out of prison before their victims' children are eighteen, in most situations.

[Ferguson97]

Drunk drivers who kill people should not be out of prison before their victims' children are eighteen, in most situations.

So someone who kills a parent of a newborn would get a mandatory minimum of 18 years, and someone who kills the parent of a 17-year-old would get a mandatory minimum of 1-year? What is the reasoning behind this?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Drunk drivers who kill people should not be out of prison before their victims' children are eighteen, in most situations.

So someone who kills a parent of a newborn would get a mandatory minimum of 18 years, and someone who kills the parent of a 17-year-old would get a mandatory minimum of 1-year? What is the reasoning behind this?

No...?

In general, I'm saying people who kill people through grossly negligent manslaughter or worse should not be getting out of prison in less than (let's say) fifteen years, so if there are children, they wouldn't be free to contribute much child support.