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.”

  • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    If only there was something to do besides getting drunk. Or if only there was a way to stop drinking before you get hammered.

    Car dependent infrastructure has very little to do with people making bad decisions. Getting drunk shouldn’t be a given.

    • wishthane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People can enjoy a drink responsibly, but you shouldn’t drive even if you’ve only had a couple of drinks. Even a small amount of impairment is unacceptable when you’re controlling a machine that could easily kill other people by mistake.

      • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d argue anyone drinking and getting behind the wheel is making a conscious enough decision to make it murder. And I hope that more cases end up going that route of prosecution

        • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s an interesting take, that going drinking without a plan to get home without driving drunk would considered premeditation. I don’t think I agree with it exactly, but it certainly should be an enhancement to manslaughter.

          • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s actually precedent, like they’ve actually convicted someone of murder for drunk driving before. Maybe a few times, but I’m sure it’s exceedingly rare.

        • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A little philosophical, but the drunk person who decides to drive is a different person than the sober person who decided to drink in the first place. Punishing the sober person for the decisions made by the drunk version of themselves is maybe misguided, except for as a deterrent that says “don’t turn into a drunk person that can make stupid decisions”

          I’m not sure what the right answer is to this problem. Just some food for thought

          • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s just about the least convincing take I’ve ever heard. You can absolutely punish the person who made the decision to impair themselves beyond the ability to make rational decisions. They came from the same decision to get drunk by the sober person. A person who has a propensity to get drunk and drive is a danger to everyone and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

            • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think you missed my point. My point is that the crime the sober person makes is deciding to become impaired. That’s different from saying the sober person made a decision to drive drunk - the drunk person made that decision, not the sober person. There are 2 different people here in this scenario. Whether the law should treat it that way is a separate discussion. It would have some similarities with a “temporary insanity” defense.

              • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I did not miss your point. I thought it was entirely unconvincing. The other person is the same person just with the disadvantage of being fucked up.

                Edit. Furthermore, I believe that the drunk self is just an amplified version of the sober self. My theory is that if your drunk self is capable of doing bad, so is your sober self.

                • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hi friend, you do you, but it’s the same idea as this: https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/peftk6/a_death_row_inmates_dementia_means_he_cant/

                  You’re of course free do disagree, but I’ve the sense that you haven’t really considered the issue.

                  I also disagree with the oft-repeated sentiment that the drunk self is an amplified version of the sober self. I think the simple reality is that alcohol changes our behaviors and judgments.

                  • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Then I believe you’re an enabler and should probably rethink what you’re willing to tolerate

                    Do you really think I haven’t considered your idea? It is utterly unconvincing. Dementia and drunkenness are not the same thing, and I’d say if a person can’t remember doing something heinous, that is not a compelling reason either.

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

            I’ve thought about that before, personally, drunk driving is SO UNTHINKABLE to me, it’s never even occurred to me at any level of drunk. All the way down to near blackout drunk.

            If the thought of killing someone doesn’t deter you that much, then maybe definitely ruining the rest of your life will have that effect. And if you really can’t trust your drunk self, if drunk you is so much more stupid, then yeah, society needs to scare you out of drinking in the first place.

            • atempuser23@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              The crux of the issue is they think they won’t hurt anyone. They give 0 thought to the idea they would hurt some. That’s how this happens. Any person who thinks they might hurt someone won’t drive. They gain false confidence by drive many times without incident.

              I don’t think a single drink drive ever considered that they would hurt some or get hurt.

              • wishthane@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, exactly. It’s the same reason why punishment is only a deterrent to crime to certain extent, and it doesn’t work absolutely.

                You could make the punishment for shoplifting be summary execution, and it would still happen on a regular basis. Because people think they won’t get caught, even with evidence of lots of people having been caught before.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t drink, but I’ve known plenty of people that can have a potent margarita, hangout for an hour or two, and then hop on one foot or do a cartwheel just fine.

        I have serious doubts those folks are any more of a danger to anyone than the average driver or the average tired or emotional driver.

        I guess what I’m saying is… it’s idealistic to never be impaired and always be at 100% but there’s a tolerable amount of impairment where realistically it’s not going to have an impact, and I think the law takes that into account appropriately as is; so as to say driving after a drink is not the same thing as driving while drunk. It’s not the folks genuinely having one or two, it’s the folks that had “one or two” (12) barely made it to their car and then went down the road.

        • wishthane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have serious doubts those folks are any more of a danger to anyone than the average driver or the average tired or emotional driver.

          I think I agree with that except that I think that that is equally a problem. I don’t think people should be trusted to drive, en masse, out of necessity. There are too many things that make it dangerous when people really don’t have a lot of choice in the matter, and may have to drive when they’re not actually feeling up to it.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s valid. There are definitely a lot of people I bump into that I go “man how did that person get a license!?” Granted, everybody makes mistakes.

            We really need to crack down on tailgating in the US though, it’s out of control. It doesn’t get you anywhere faster and it ensures everyone on the road is less safe.

            • wishthane@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There’s something about driving that innately dehumanizes - I swear I’ve actually seen studies about this. When people are behind the wheel, they don’t relate to the world around them as personally, empathy kind of disappears, it all becomes something like a game, and everything between them and their destination is just an obstacle to be overcome.

      • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, I agree people are allowed to do absolutely idiotic things without consequences.

        Drinking is a personal choice. Getting drunk affects more than yourself.

      • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, people should have the right to choose to drink, and then choose to drive, and “accidentally” kill someone.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t what I said and you know it. Drinking is not something a person should have to justify to anyone but themselves. This is not an endorsement of drunk driving and no one assuming good faith would have assumed I was making one.

          You have a right to put a chemical into your own body. It only becomes an issue for those around you when A leads to B and B is other people either getting hurt or very nearly getting hurt.

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

            Well, I didn’t get what you were saying. In this context, I don’t why tf anyone is even talking about infrastructure.

            And then your statement seemed like a non sequitur. So, I was just saying what my read of your statement was.

            I don’t think people normally say things like what I said, legitimately accusing the other of saying that. But as a hyperbolic expression, for the sake of highlighting a misunderstanding.