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.”

  • Fisk400@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    They did something that wasn’t evil, just stupid. I guess that is a win for texas. There are already systems to make people pay damages to other people without having the child go trough the indignity of getting child support from a murderer.

    • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indignity of receiving child support? Are you kidding?

      We’re talking about a child/children’s parent being killed, and you think it’s somehow unjust that they’re receiving the smallest amount of financial restitution from the person who killed them. I’d love to hear you explain how this is somehow stupid or insulting to a single parent and the surviving children.

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the words in my comment are important and you seem to have cut out a large part of them like some kind of weird ransome note.

        I said that damages, that means the same as financial restitution, should be and is payed out in these kinds of cases. There is already a legal framework for that and it doesn’t involve child support like the drunk driver is the kids new dad. It is a gross way of looking at it and if it is truly child support like child support is handled then they have suddenly introduced a criminal aspect to a system that doesn’t normally interface with the justice system.

        • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am not going to oppose anything that gets more support to single parents and children who lose a parent.

          Being opposed to this because of what it’s called is a ridiculously short sighted view to take. I don’t care what this is called, but it is not gross, and it is not stupid.