Poll of the Day > TN passes bill to make drunk drivers pay kid support if they kill a parent.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-drunk-drivers-pay-child-support-kill-a-parent-minor-bill-passes/

Fully agree. Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions.

The greatest thing Tennessee has ever done politically*

*lets see what this leads to before we start singing super praise to Tennessee

This is conceptually interesting and something I agree with in theory, but I'm a bit worried that it is not going to work out well. The system does give a 1 year grace period before payments have to begin, which is smart, but there is a possibility that this will just result in the perpetrator in question ending up behind bars again if they end up having to resort to criminal behavior to make payments.

I also wonder if it might cause harm to the victim's family to have prolonged contact of any kind with the perpetrator in this way. Hopefully Tennessee's State will keep a close eye on this (not holding my breath). I wonder what psychologists/therapists would say about this.

Don't get me wrong; I think in a less dysfunctional legal system, this would probably be an unambiguous good, and it could still be largely successful, but I suspect it may cause additional issues, unfortunately.

Gaawa_chan posted...

I also wonder if it might cause harm to the victim's family to have prolonged contact of any kind with the perpetrator in this way. Hopefully Tennessee's State will keep a close eye on this (not holding my breath). I wonder what psychologists/therapists would say about this.

I am pretty sure the payments will be direct deposit or a state issues debit card like normal childsupport. odds are the kids may never even know what the person looks like, or even their name.

hypnox posted...

I am pretty sure the payments will be direct deposit or a state issues debit card like normal childsupport. odds are the kids may never even know what the person looks like, or even their name.

That would probably be the best way to do it. I've been thinking about the legal system lately and how it's unfortunate that we focus so much on shitting on the perpetrator that we do very little for victims and their families. I've always been a bit confused at how victims have to cough up for their own trauma therapy and such, for example.

I like the theory. I am worried about potential unforseen consequences. What if some court decides that the paying of child support gives the drunk visitation rights or if the child becomes orphaned and the drunk petitions for custody on the basis of already being the financial caretaker of the child.

slacker03150 posted...

I like the theory. I am worried about potential unforseen consequences. What if some court decides that the paying of child support gives the drunk visitation rights or if the child becomes orphaned and the drunk petitions for custody on the basis of already being the financial caretaker of the child.

pretty sure a felony would make it pretty hard to get custody of a child in any circumstance.

Gaawa_chan posted...

This is conceptually interesting and something I agree with in theory, but I'm a bit worried that it is not going to work out well.

This. Plus I'm not sure it gets to the root of the problem, either. Unless the drunk drivers rehabbed (ensuring they don't touch a drop of booze again), they're still a risk -- after all, drunk drivers are notorious repeat offenders, having one of the highest recidivism rates. And if they can't be rehabbed, they may need to stay at a medical facility permanently.

The_Viscount posted...

they may need to stay at a medical facility permanently.

FFS, Zeus...

i'm sure this will be enforced equitably

As long as this is enforced equally, then fine.
But child support laws have always been unevenly imposed on men compared to women, and only the former are called "deadbeats" and sent to prison when they can't pay (note I said can't, not don't -- that was very intentional b/c current child support laws are fucking evil)
So, much as I despise drunk drivers... my gut reaction is that this is a terrible law that will penalize the poor, minority, and male drivers and let the white female Tammy Sytch's (Sunny in WWE, who just got her... 8th I think? ...DUI and killed a guy) of the world off scott free.

Why isn't throwing the drunk drivers in prison for a long time ever a solution?

Fam_Fam posted...

i'm sure this will be enforced equitably

Yeah, I'm sure it totally will be, too

The_Viscount posted...

This. Plus I'm not sure it gets to the root of the problem, either. Unless the drunk drivers rehabbed (ensuring they don't touch a drop of booze again), they're still a risk -- after all, drunk drivers are notorious repeat offenders, having one of the highest recidivism rates. And if they can't be rehabbed, they may need to stay at a medical facility permanently.

Let's not forget that drunk people are bad when it comes to making decisions.

hypnox posted...

pretty sure a felony would make it pretty hard to get custody of a child in any circumstance

This is the same state that tried to legalize child marriage. I don't know if I trust them that far.

Gaawa_chan posted...

FFS, Zeus...

It's Zeus you know he likes criminals who frequently are spoiled rich kids.

That's actually a pretty good call. Inventive and adequate.

Fam_Fam posted...

i'm sure this will be enforced equitably

I am totally sure it will totally not take in consideration the person's sex in the equation like the overwhelming majority of crimes...

It's a nice idea, but it's kind of a band-aid on a much larger gaping wound. This will mitigate some of the harm in some fatal drunk driving cases (overwhelmingly just the ones that can't afford good lawyers, given how often the rich get off on killing people while driving drunk), but likely won't reduce overall rates (if the risk of killing somebody wasn't enough of a deterrent, a large fine won't be either). There's little point in dicking around with half measures like this. Just go all the way and mandate interlock systems in every new car sold and as an automatic sentence applied (including retroactively) to the owner of any car involved in any DUI-related offence (regardless of who was driving, possibly also any other car the guilty individual may end up in).

I, like it seems like everyone else, is cautiously optimistic about this.

I actually think this is kinda dumb.

Solid Sonic posted...

That's actually a pretty good call. Inventive and adequate.

You know what would be a good call? Just throw drunk drivers in prison to begin with, instead of waiting for them to kill someone the next time.

Also, another problem I have with this bill: It inherently makes the life of a parent worth more than someone else's. How harshly you're punished for killing somebody will vary wildly depending on who it is. Childless adults and children themselves will be less "costly" to drunkenly kill.

The more I contemplate how much is wrong w/ this law, the more I hope a court strikes it down.

streamofthesky posted...

You know what would be a good call? Just throw drunk drivers in prison to begin with, instead of waiting for them to kill someone the next time.

For that matter, all dangerous drivers. The concept of "dangerous driving causing death" shouldn't be a thing. The only difference between regular dangerous driving and the fatal variety is luck. The potential risk is identical, so that should be the basis for removing them from the roads by whatever means are deemed suitable for the risk levels involved, not how lucky or unlucky they were.

zelda_good.gif

slacker03150 posted...

This is the same state that tried to legalize child marriage. I don't know if I trust them that far.

Marry the kid, don't have to pay child support.

Solid Sonic posted...

That's actually a pretty good call. Inventive and adequate.

"adequate" would be putting them in prison for murder

Krazy_Kirby posted...

"adequate" would be putting them in prison for murder

Technically that would be manslaughter

slacker03150 posted...

This is the same state that tried to legalize child marriage. I don't know if I trust them that far.

Today in things that didn't happen.

Revelation34 posted...

Today in things that didn't happen.

Elaborate

Krazy_Kirby posted...

"adequate" would be putting them in prison for murder

But this would be a matter for after they're released, no?

Or are you saying if you kill someone while driving drunk you go to prison for life, no parole?

Solid Sonic posted...

But this would be a matter for after they're released, no?

Or are you saying if you kill someone while driving drunk you go to prison for life, no parole?

drunk driving shouldn't be considered manslaughter, since they chose to drive while drunk.... making that choice wasn't an accident

I wasn't saying it was but you can't really elevate it to anything beyond maybe second-degree homicide, the situations of which rarely carry a life sentence (and I don't think any without the possibility of parole).

But putting someone in prison for 15-20 years is certainly justified and, if they get out earlier than that, they've still got to absorb the liability for leaving a child parentless until that child is a legal adult.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

drunk driving shouldn't be considered manslaughter, since they chose to drive while drunk.... making that choice wasn't an accident

Manslaughter doesn't require that the choice that lead to somebody dying was an accident. In fact, if the choice was an accident, the death is ruled totally accidental and nobody is held criminally responsible. Manslaughter just means the death itself was accidental, but the circumstances leading up to it were reckless enough to make somebody criminally responsible for it.

Gaawa_chan posted...

FFS, Zeus...

Heaven forbid a facility be used for its intended purpose...

Unbridled9 posted...

Let's not forget that drunk people are bad when it comes to making decisions.

Honestly, the whole regulation of alcohol needs to be heavily regulated but, failing that, we have to do what we can.

Under a sensible system -- where alcohol isn't banned -- it should be consumed at the place of purchase under the care of a medical professional who can deem when people should be cut off, their ability to drive, etc.

BlackScythe0 posted...

It's Zeus you know he likes criminals who frequently are spoiled rich kids.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/0/8/AAZOGFAAAcTE.jpg

Making a rich kid effectively "buy" a human's life is all kinds of reprehensible -- especially when you'd let them potentially do it again -- and I'm not sure you'd support it over keeping them off the street.

adjl posted...

For that matter, all dangerous drivers. The concept of "dangerous driving causing death" shouldn't be a thing. The only difference between regular dangerous driving and the fatal variety is luck. The potential risk is identical, so that should be the basis for removing them from the roads by whatever means are deemed suitable for the risk levels involved, not how lucky or unlucky they were.

The problem with that is it's a nebulous standard. Drunk driving is easy to quantify. Dangerous driving, not so much. Yes, there's some shit like texting where people's licenses should be revoked. And failure to observe stop signs, obviously.

Granted, a lot of this stuff might be mitigated once self-driving vehicles become the norm.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

drunk driving shouldn't be considered manslaughter, since they chose to drive while drunk.... making that choice wasn't an accident

Fair. Honestly, the penalties for doing anything while drunk should be higher.

adjl posted...

Manslaughter doesn't require that the choice that lead to somebody dying was an accident. In fact, if the choice was an accident, the death is ruled totally accidental and nobody is held criminally responsible. Manslaughter just means the death itself was accidental, but the circumstances leading up to it were reckless enough to make somebody criminally responsible for it.

Which is why an added penalty should be added for drunkenness. Possibly make it a federal-level crime, too, because there's already a precedent for that.

The_tall_midget posted...

Fully agree. Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions.

Sadly this will probably FINALLY be the thing that gets some of these jerks off the bottle.

slacker03150 posted...

What if some court decides that the paying of child support gives the drunk visitation rights

I don't think that'd ever come up. This is a criminal who killed your parent, afterall.

The_Viscount posted...

Under a sensible system -- where alcohol isn't banned -- it should be consumed at the place of purchase under the care of a medical professional who can deem when people should be cut off, their ability to drive, etc.

I support the idea if people drinking at the supermarket.

This will probably be a short lived law. As soon as it affects the governor or member of the state legislature, it'll be repealed.

The_Viscount posted...

The problem with that is it's a nebulous standard. Drunk driving is easy to quantify. Dangerous driving, not so much. Yes, there's some s*** like texting where people's licenses should be revoked. And failure to observe stop signs, obviously.

The charge already exists and has enough of an empirical basis to be successfully applied (albeit not to nearly as many drivers as it should be), whether "causing death" is included as an aggravating factor or not.

The_Viscount posted...

Which is why an added penalty should be added for drunkenness.

That's... exactly what's meant by "the circumstances leading up to it were reckless enough to make somebody criminally responsible for it." Drunk driving causing death is a subset of manslaughter.

MrAntisocial posted...

This will probably be a short lived law. As soon as it affects the governor or member of the state legislature, it'll be repealed.

Nah, they'll just get off by hiring a good enough lawyer, as happens in any drunk driving case where the driver is rich and/or connected. The only people that have to worry about this are the ones that won't have to money to pay the extra child support anyway.

adjl posted...

The charge already exists and has enough of an empirical basis to be successfully applied (albeit not to nearly as many drivers as it should be), whether "causing death" is included as an aggravating factor or not.

That's... exactly what's meant by "the circumstances leading up to it were reckless enough to make somebody criminally responsible for it." Drunk driving causing death is a subset of manslaughter.

Nah, they'll just get off by hiring a good enough lawyer, as happens in any drunk driving case where the driver is rich and/or connected. The only people that have to worry about this are the ones that won't have to money to pay the extra child support anyway.

so don't drive drunk, problem solved

Krazy_Kirby posted...

so don't drive drunk, problem solved

It solves the problem of ever having to face consequences for driving drunk, but it doesn't solve the problem of other people driving drunk, which is what most of us decent people are more concerned about because we've already figured out the first part.

Also TN

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3259843-tennessee-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages/

Honestly, the whole regulation of alcohol needs to be heavily regulated but, failing that, we have to do what we can.

Under a sensible system -- where alcohol isn't banned -- it should be consumed at the place of purchase under the care of a medical professional who can deem when people should be cut off, their ability to drive, etc.

That doesn't sound 'sensible'. That sounds insanely dystopian and a level of governmental over-reach and tyranny that not even China has obtained (yet).

so then their wages could be garnished, and the money they spend on booze would go to the kids.

Here's an example of a case where DWI results in a charge of second-degree murder:

https://youtu.be/rBo5R60dEJ4

So it's definitely possible but even getting that probably won't carry the maximum.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

drunk driving shouldn't be considered manslaughter, since they chose to drive while drunk.... making that choice wasn't an accident

Um. Wat.

The entire reason why the charge of manslaughter exists is to cover those instances where you do something harmful or dumb or reckless, but don't actually intend to kill someone. Someone driving drunk isn't *trying* to kill someone (most of the time), but the behaviour is reckless enough that a reasonable person would acknowledge an elevated risk of injury or death to a bystander - hence, manslaughter.

This isn't unique to drunk driving either. If I shove someone hard and they stumble backwards, fall, hit their head on a concrete curb, and die of brain damage, that is manslaughter, not murder. My choice to shove them was deliberate and criminal, but I did not intend for them to die, so murder would not be the correct charge.

darkknight109 posted...

Um. Wat.

The entire reason why the charge of manslaughter exists is to cover those instances where you do something harmful or dumb or reckless, but don't actually intend to kill someone. Someone driving drunk isn't *trying* to kill someone (most of the time), but the behaviour is reckless enough that a reasonable person would acknowledge an elevated risk of injury or death to a bystander - hence, manslaughter.

This isn't unique to drunk driving either. If I shove someone hard and they stumble backwards, fall, hit their head on a concrete curb, and die of brain damage, that is manslaughter, not murder. My choice to shove them was deliberate and criminal, but I did not intend for them to die, so murder would not be the correct charge.

If someone puts on a blindfold and starts opening fire (literally) blindly in a shopping center, is it manslaughter or murder?
He has no idea if he's gonna hit anybody or not. There's a bunch of people on the road ---err... I mean, in the shopping center. But it's entirely possible they may swerve to avoi--- damn it, why do I keep doing that? -- I mean, duck for cover, and avoid getting "manslaughtered"

I'm sure making it murder isn't palatable to an American public that chose to support the literal mafia when they couldn't get their fix. But I definitely think it SHOULD be (attempted) murder. I'ma just climb into this 1 ton high speed death machine with no control over my cognitive functions, mmm'kay?

Nobody intends on driving drunk. They just do so because they can't think straight.

streamofthesky posted...

If someone puts on a blindfold and starts opening fire (literally) blindly in a shopping center, is it manslaughter or murder?
He has no idea if he's gonna hit anybody or not. There's a bunch of people on the road ---err... I mean, in the shopping center. But it's entirely possible they may swerve to avoi--- damn it, why do I keep doing that? -- I mean, duck for cover, and avoid getting "manslaughtered"

By opening fire aren't you are already showing intent to kill? That's what guns are primarily for doing. Killing things.

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody intends on driving drunk. They just do so because they can't think straight.

"I didn't mean to, I was drunk" is not an excuse and never will be.
The ONLY time it's a valid defense is when someone consumes alcohol unwillingly or unwittingly, such as having their drink spiked.
Otherwise, the person is CHOOSING to drink and not taking appropriate measures to avoid driving drunk.

Blue_Thunder posted...

By opening fire aren't you are already showing intent to kill? That's what guns are primarily for doing. Killing things.

Wildly driving your car into people is also an intent to kill. The incidents of trucks plowing into people and killing them aren't murder? Cars can easily become deadly weapons, too.

streamofthesky posted...

If someone puts on a blindfold and starts opening fire (literally) blindly in a shopping center, is it manslaughter or murder?

Good question.

Most of the time, firing blindly and recklessly and accidentally hitting someone is manslaughter. Like, if I fire a gun down what I think is an empty street and it winds up hitting and killing someone I didn't see, that would be a fairly open-and-shut case of manslaughter.

In your particular example, however, the prosecution would likely argue that, if you were in a crowded shopping centre and started firing blindly, it would be impossible for you to have any intent other than to kill, given that there is no conceivable reason for doing that if you did not intend to kill someone. That logic, however, would get shot down in seconds if you tried to use it during a drunk driving trial. There's extraordinarily reckless actions far more likely to cause death - like, say, street racing while driving double the speed limit on a highway - that would still be charged as manslaughter, so no prosecutor would ever be able to make the argument that drunk driving is *so* dangerous that there could be no other possible outcome than death, thus justifying the upgrade to murder.

Also, I feel like you don't understand how murder/manslaughter works if you think that the civilians potentially ducking for cover makes a difference. The important part isn't whether or not they can avoid your attack (that's the difference between murder/manslaughter and attempted murder/reckless endangerment); it's whether or not you were deliberately trying to kill them at the time.

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody intends on driving drunk.

This isn't true. Plenty of times the issue is someone thinking, "I can drive fine when I'm drunk - I'm not gonna bust a bunch of money on a cab, it's not like I'm *actually* going to hit anyone or anything".

streamofthesky posted...

Wildly driving your car into people is also an intent to kill.

Not really. Not unless there's additional information you left out.

Like, if someone wildly drives their car into someone and kills them because:
a) Their brakes had been tampered with and they were unable to stop
b) They were driving in icy conditions and couldn't stop their car in time
c) They were drinking or otherwise impaired
d) They were in the midst of road rage and deliberately ran over someone who had cut them off and got out of their car
e) The victim owed the driver money and the driver got angry and decided to run them down in a parking lot

That's five different scenarios, with five different legal outcomes (though b and c would potentially wind up being the similar charges) - specifically, no charge, a battery of possible charges (ranging from no charge to driving with undue care and attention to dangerous driving causing death, depending on how bad the driving was for the road conditions at the time), driving while impaired causing death, second degree murder, and first degree murder respectively - with only the last two showing an obvious intent to kill and leading to murder charges.

Again, for it to be murder, you have to knowingly and willingly be intending to cause death. That's the crux of the charge. If you killed someone because you were doing something really fucking stupid - like driving drunk - and you happened to kill someone, that's still a serious crime and your ass deserves to be in prison for a good long while, but it isn't murder, because at no point did you intend for someone to die because of your stupidity. Reckless disregard for safety of others and negligence are not the same thing as malice.