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_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That reminds me of something that may not at all be true (please correct me if I’m wrong) I was told it, many years ago, by a person who lived for a few years in China.

    She said that there was a law there (in the '90s at least) that if you injured someone accidentally to the point that they were disabled, you had to pay their disability as long as they lived (or you die, whichever is first). BUT if you accidentally killed someone (not murdered) then you just had to pay their family a fine.

    The fine was much less than a lifetime of disability payments, so there was incentive, if you accidentally injured someone (especially a child with a lot of years to live) to just go all the way and kill them as long as it could feasibly look like an accident.

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

      A classic example of perverse incentives. Same for endangered animals. The most rational self-interest thing you can do is you see some endangered animal on your land is to kill it. Since if the government becomes aware of it you will lose control of your property and it will lose resell value.

      You want to make things such that doing the morally correct, or at least the correct for the greater good, is always the best option for people to choose.

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

        This is also an argument against extreme punishment for lesser offenses. For example, if you rape someone, and the penalty is death, might as well kill them too, because it ain’t gonna get any worse for you if you get caught.