• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tennessee passes bill that would require drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a parent of a minor

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
85,685
Reaction score
72,372
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Tennessee passes bill that would require drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a parent of a minor

If the defendant is incarcerated and unable to pay the required child maintenance, they have one year after their release to begin paying.
www.cbsnews.com


--

This is an interesting concept, though I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.

So, I'll see what the good posters of DP think below.
 

I saw this on the news this morning. I actually think it's a good bill.
 
Sounds good to me. Even better if these drunks are forced to donate 90% of their future money to the victim's family.
 
I agree it’s interesting and I support it based on what’s presented. I am curious about what unintended consequences may come from this.
 
Moon said:
I agree it’s interesting and I support it based on what’s presented. I am curious about what unintended consequences may come from this.
Click to expand...

Yep. Which is why I have some reservations of using this particular enforcement mechanism.

I'm not dead against it. I'm just concerned about government expansion of this specific enforcement program, and as you said, possible unintended consequences.
 

Yeah. Poor kid cannot "be made whole" but he/she ought to get something out of it.

Seems though you can either send them to prison OR do this, not both. Does the kid much less good if you don't start paying until you've served 5-10 years or whatever.
 
It makes little (or no) sense to do so only for that single (and unintentional?) form of vehicular manslaughter (BTW, intoxicated was mentioned in the articles text, but along with aggravated) while not doing so for other forms of homicide. If the perp had shot or stabbed the cop (or other parent) to death then why should they not owe child support restitution?
 
Last edited:
Heinlein postulated a fictional society where, if you killed someone unlawfully, you had to pay their heirs their presumed lifetime earnings.

He concluded, "If you want to murder someone, do it in a society that will just hang you."
 
Goshin said:
Heinlein postulated a fictional society where, if you killed someone unlawfully, you had to pay their heirs their presumed lifetime earnings.

He concluded, "If you want to murder someone, do it in a society that will just hang you."
Click to expand...

I’m OK with the concept, but think that it should require proof of intent to kill. Doing so for involuntary manslaughter is a bit much, IMHO.
 
What a strange law. And really, what is the point when most people don't make enough money for themselves let alone pay for child support? they likely will never be able to pay

Moon said:
I agree it’s interesting and I support it based on what’s presented. I am curious about what unintended consequences may come from this.
Click to expand...

This seems to set a bad precedent. Where does it stop? What if a patient dies, possibly by doctor error, make him pay child support for life?
 
Make people responsible for damage they have caused. Seems like a good idea?
 

Why not?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I’m OK with the concept, but think that it should require proof of intent to kill. Doing so for involuntary manslaughter is a bit much, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Hm, that might be a fair statement.
 

The bolded is my fear, exactly.

@ttwtt78640 had a good observation, I think. There is a difference between premeditated homicide, and involuntary or negligent homicide.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I’m OK with the concept, but think that it should require proof of intent to kill. Doing so for involuntary manslaughter is a bit much, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Driving while drunk fits the "depraved heart" standard, i.e. acting with indifference to the risk to human life. That's second or third degree murder in many states.

I don't see why intent to kill should be a pre-requisite for accountability.
 
How many of these drunk drivers will already be behind in paying for their own child's support?
 


I would have thought they would be in jail, paying child support when in jail would be difficult
 
Goshin said:
If he's in jail ten years, the kid may be grown by then. Little benefit.
Click to expand...

They don't get 10 years.

And regardless, criminal penalties should never be withdrawn if warranted (IMO).

But, you make a very good point in that even a year, or two, or three is a significant portion of a child's life.
 
mrjurrs said:
How many of these drunk drivers will already be behind in paying for their own child's support?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but by the same extension, "How many Welch on lump sum debts?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…