Texas drunk drivers will now have to pay child support if they kill a parent, guardian | CNN
www.cnn.com
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.

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.comEnglish
    1·
    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
      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.comEnglish
        1·
        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.

        • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          I think dementia and acts committed while drunk have some similarities when it comes to assigning responsibility (and punishment), but yes they’re not the same. One is involuntary, and the other is voluntary. The voluntary act to get drunk is what I called out in my first post. But after that initial act, I think the 2 scenarios are more alike than they are different.