• 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
84,798
Reaction score
71,517
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

A Tennessee bill that would require drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a parent due to intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide has passed.

House Bill 1834 would require a person who is convicted of vehicular homicide to pay restitution in the form of child maintenance if their victim was the parent of a minor child. Each child of the victim would receive the restitution until they reach 18 years old and graduate high school.

The payments are similar to traditional child support, in which a parent pays the primary caregiver of their child until that child becomes a legal adult at 18.

--

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.
 



--

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.
 



--

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 it’s interesting and I support it based on what’s presented. I am curious about what unintended consequences may come from this.
 
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.

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.
 



--

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

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."
 
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."

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.
 



--

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.
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

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.

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?
 
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.

Why not?
 
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



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?

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.
 
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.

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.
 



--

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.
How many of these drunk drivers will already be behind in paying for their own child's support?
 



--

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

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.
 
How many of these drunk drivers will already be behind in paying for their own child's support?

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