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.”
I agree, pleading up to guilty is dumb. But I do have to question the wisdom of this law anyway: Do you not normally go to prison for manslaughter in Texas? According to https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/texas-manslaughter-laws.html you can end up in prison for up to 20 years (though it can be as little as two, but I’d assume it’s not two in the case of drunk driving.) Intoxication manslaughter is also usually accompanied by a fine of up to $10,000.
Even two years imprisonment for a felony will result in the felon (1) selling up all their possessions to pay for lawyers, etc, and (2) losing their jobs and being unable to get jobs for years afterwards. Something that’ll be made worse if they’re on the hook for child support they’re unable to pay for and therefore will, I assume, be unable to get a driver’s license, in a state where driving is mandatory.
So, other than theater, what is this for? Making child support “someone else’s problem” so the state can avoid helping people in dire financial circumstances by pointing at someone else and saying “Well they should be paying for it.”?
I appreciate a lot of people are posting here agreeing with the bill because it sounds like something they should support. But it’s either not thought out, or the intentions behind it are rotten. Given it’s Texas, the latter seems probable.
Touché. Maybe to bring it back into the realms of ‘worth keeping’, it could be means-tested (so of you have assets then this stands and you gotta liquefy that wealth, but if you’re essentially unable to pay its recognized as a barrier to rehabilitation?)
I’m being incredibly naive here, I know…