Drunk drivers in this state will now have to pay child support if they kill a parent, guardian
youtu.be
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, whic...

New law in Texas will make drunk drivers who murdered parent or guardian to pay child support until the child is 18 years old.

  • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    21·
    10 months ago

    That is a law I can absolutely get behind. I’d go further and say that if they cause serious harm, they have to pay until the guardian can fully resume their duties to the child.

    • Cozy@feddit.de
      7·
      10 months ago

      I’m quiet shocked it isn’t the case in the US or Texas already. I’m from Germany and if you harm anyone while being drunk or just stupid you have to pay for every problem you caused. E.g. falling asleep while driving, causing an accident and hurting a pregnant woman, damaging the infant maybe a brain damage or stuff, it would be calculated by statistics how much money the child won’t earn in life cause of you and you had to pay for every medical treatment for ever. Every cent not earned or spent because of your actions is yours to pay.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          5·
          10 months ago

          I’d go even farther. Getting into a car while drunk is a choice, so is getting drunk in the first place. That doesn’t happen by accident. Whether someone dies or gets hurt because of that is out of your control.

          I am for judging by choices and actions, not by random consequences of these choices.

          So regardless of whether someone gets hurt, the penalty needs to be as high as if someone got hurt. Because why would you not punish someone just because they got lucky?

          Drunk driving is always about convenience or saving money (compared to getting a taxi), so the punishment must be so high, that it’s never the cheaper or more convenient option to drive drunk.

      • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
        5·
        10 months ago

        Why not?

        This is, sort of, already implemented where I live, in that the intoxicated driver is liable for loss of income, temporary or permanent, to any victims.

        On the downside, judges tend to err under actual loss, and we don’t really have an effective “loss of enjoyment” concept. Such to say someone, who is injured but can continue to work at the same, wouldn’t be compensated for things like an injury precluding them from non-work damages; for example a skier victim who can no longer ski due to injuries

      • neanderthal@lemmy.world
        5·
        10 months ago

        How about Elaborate on why you are against it? If you have a really good reason, you may even win some people over to your side.