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

[mrjurrs]

Yeah, but by the same extension, "How many Welch on lump sum debts?"

?

 

[reflechissez]

URL unfurl="true"]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-drunk-drivers-pay-child-support-kill-a-parent-minor-bill-passes/[/URL]



--

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.

Meh. Is this going to be something decided as the result of a law suit? If so, sue the perp for X dollars and call it anything you like [assuming the perp is not judgement-proof]. I don't see any benefit to carving out as "child support." Can the state assess a judgement without a lawsuit?

 

[Napoleon]

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.

Agree, interesting concept. I suppose there should be restitution for the sudden loss of income this represents, but it shouldn’t apply if some rando baby mama/daddy who never contributed anything gets snuffed.

 

[Lursa]

The general idea of remuneration for surviving children would seem to have merit.

I like the idea. Will need to explore the downstream effects further.

But, I'm not sure using the Child Support system is the right mechanism.

Why not? It's a bureaucracy that's already set up for a similar purpose. That would save taxpayers $.

 

[Lursa]

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.

They might have a bank account or a house....after all, they're not using it

 

[Mr Person]

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.

TN doing something good? Huh.

But no, it's weird. I want DUI and distracted drivers punished far more harshly and far more quickly. I read an article about someone who kills a family on their 6th DUI and....wtf

 

[ttwtt78640]

They might have a bank account or a house....after all, they're not using it

Yep, and they probably have no dependents.

 

[Lursa]

Yep, and they probably have no dependents.

Their kids go with less? They also use his life insurance if he has any? Or they all just 'ride' until the $$ runs out?

 

[HangLow]

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.

​

 

[Slartibartfast]

The general idea of remuneration for surviving children would seem to have merit.

But, I'm not sure using the Child Support system is the right mechanism.

I would agree, court allocated damages makes more sense here.

 

[Acadia]

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.

Great concept for Americans killed by illegals. Kill a parent and sue Joe Biden for support.
Start with the drowned Texas Nation Guardsman's widow and family.

 

[ClaraD]

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 agree interesting concept, but I'm not quite sure this would pass Constitutional muster. Also, if the surviving child or children receive survivor benefits from insurance, pension or Social security that may complicate issues.

 

[ClaraD]

Make people responsible for damage they have caused. Seems like a good idea?

Usually the courts have civil measures including punitive damages. Insurance etc pay this out when life is lost in an auto accident

 

[ClaraD]

Great concept for Americans killed by illegals. Kill a parent and sue Joe Biden for support.
Start with the drowned Texas Nation Guardsman's widow and family.

The woman didn't kill him and she wasn't drunk. He drowned, because the currents in the Rio Grande are quite nasty and can drowned even the best swimmer if they don't know how to deal with them.

Also, this thread is about the law on DRUNK drivers in Tennessee....it seems Trumpers have a horrible time staying on topic

 

[Chomsky]

Meh. Is this going to be something decided as the result of a law suit? If so, sue the perp for X dollars and call it anything you like [assuming the perp is not judgement-proof]. I don't see any benefit to carving out as "child support." Can the state assess a judgement without a lawsuit?

I tend to agree with you, here.

 

[Chomsky]

?

Oops!

The 'W' should not be capped!

 

[Court Jester]

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.

Sometimes even legislatures on the right can have bad "feel good" ideas too. I don't see how this can pass a legal muster, but I'm not a lawyer.

I prefer making a first DUI offense so strong than no sane person would risk drinking and driving. A first offense should be a 10k fine and one year suspension of driving privileges....no accommodation for driving to work, school, or even a doctor's appointment. Come down so hard on violators that the word gets out not to take the risk. A second violation and you spend a year in jail. A third 5 years in prison. You kill somebody, it is a 2nd degree murder.

 

[highroller]

The general idea of remuneration for surviving children would seem to have merit.

But, I'm not sure using the Child Support system is the right mechanism.

As my dad would say: “it’s just a way for the friend of the court to skim their 3% of the money off”

 

[highroller]

Sometimes even legislatures on the right can have bad "feel good" ideas too. I don't see how this can pass a legal muster, but I'm not a lawyer.

I prefer making a first DUI offense so strong than no sane person would risk drinking and driving. A first offense should be a 10k fine and one year suspension of driving privileges....no accommodation for driving to work, school, or even a doctor's appointment. Come down so hard on violators that the word gets out not to take the risk. A second violation and you spend a year in jail. A third 5 years in prison. You kill somebody, it is a 2nd degree murder.

Zero tolerance coast to coast with a death penalty on the spot?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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

Or, like my actual father, they'll just decide not to pay.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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.

Maybe drunk driving should just be felony. See how many people still do it after a few of their friends get thrown in prison for a year or two.

 

[lurchadams]

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 like it!

 

[The Mark]

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 think persons who are drunk are incapable of making the correct decision about whether to drive or not.
And the correct decision is no.

 

[Cardinal]

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 you’re saying would necessarily apply to any other drunk driving situations, but proof of intent isn’t required in those situations, and it wouldn’t logically apply here. It’s a totally binary crime: you either drove while drunk, or you didn’t (of course there’s a spectrum — how much you had to drink, as well as the severity of the outcome, are factored in).

And it’s a moot point besides: although the exact laws vary from state to state, what we commonly think of as “manslaughter” is the taking of a life that was specifically unintentional. If it’s intentional, then we’re talking about what we typically mean when we say first and second degreee murder (again, the exact laws vary from state to state).

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that proof of intent is required to prosecute the kinds of crimes that the people who make those laws might commit. Drunk driving or robbing a bank? No mens rea required. Massive tax evasion, treason, obstruction of justice, abuse of power or incitement to violence? The prosecutors are required to be telepaths to get an indictment, which is why Donald Trump isn’t in prison right now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What you’re saying would necessarily apply to any other drunk driving situations, but proof of intent isn’t required in those situations, and it wouldn’t logically apply here. It’s a totally binary crime: you either drove while drunk, or you didn’t (of course there’s a spectrum — how much you had to drink, as well as the severity of the outcome, are factored in).

Using that ‘logic’ isn’t DUI attempted homicide no matter what the outcome?

And it’s a moot point besides: although the exact laws vary from state to state, what we commonly think of as “manslaughter” is the taking of a life that was specifically unintentional. If it’s intentional, then we’re talking about what we typically mean when we say first and second degreee murder (again, the exact laws vary from state to state).

Which was my original point (post #9). Why add dependent child support to a DUI or other aggravated vehicular manslaughter, yet not for murder or manslaughter committed by other (than vehicular) means?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that proof of intent is required to prosecute the kinds of crimes that the people who make those laws might commit. Drunk driving or robbing a bank? No mens rea required. Massive tax evasion, treason, obstruction of justice, abuse of power or incitement to violence? The prosecutors are required to be telepaths to get an indictment, which is why Donald Trump isn’t in prison right now.

Again, if that sentence enhancement is to be applied for some (only vehicular?) homicide convictions in the state then why not all homicide convictions in the state?