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.”

  • wishthane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Punishing drunk drivers is well-deserved, but as long as car-dependent infrastructure encourages drunk driving, it is considerably more difficult to actually decrease the rate of it. Taking a taxi is expensive and being a DD is no fun, so people take stupid risks. If you know you can take public transit home, there’s no reason to take such a risk at all.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could take a Uber/Lyft.

      I deal with this issue, the big bus station and my house are divided by a highway. So me and my buddies go out it either has to be very local or I have to take a rideshare for a five minute drive home.

      • Surreal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        the big bus station and my house are divided by a highway

        Why does this have to be a thing? In my country they have bridges for pedestrians over the road, or underground passageway.

      • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live in a city where taking an Uber or Lyft a few miles is like $25, maybe $50 at the last call surge. Unfortunately ride-sharing is a lot more expensive in cities that don’t also have good transit, so I keep getting reminded that $25 is cheap for a ride share across any distance.

        Back when I used to go out drinking, catching the last train home or taking an Uber was my go-to choice. I don’t drink much nowadays, but the rush home in an area without good transit infrastructure is still something I think about a lot.

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This honestly reads like a defense of drunk driving, blaming the lack of infrastructure for bad decision.

      Edit: or something very close to that.

      But if you’re just saying we should design around stupid, then I guess I can agree there.

    • tenextrathrills@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      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
            2
            ·
            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.

            • 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.

        • 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
          4
          ·
          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.

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

          Yeah. “One more lane” is something that a lot of people unironically think, it’s not just a meme, so trying to ensure that everybody knows how silly that is and how much harm it causes is one of the main ways that that line of thinking can be destroyed