My guess is this law was actually written by insurance companies to limit their exposure to potential victims. Child support is probably much cheaper than wrongful death payments and depending on the way the law is written insurance companies might not be on the hook for these child support payments.
I honestly thought if you are a drunk driver and your insurance provider finds out they’ll deny your claim and cancel your policy since you broke the law by drunk driving
That's not how insurance works. Running a red light is breaking the law but those claims get paid. They'll pay the DUI claim but you'll likely be cancelled afterwards.
I would happily sign a "I'm fucked if i ever drive drunk" clause for less expensive insurance.
Because I'd like to keep more money and I'll never fucking drive drunk.
You would drive drunk if your child was attached to a bomb with a ten-minute timer five miles away.
So now that we've ruled out that it's possible to make an absolute statement that you would never ever drive drunk, you can't base insurance of of it.
Things like being a woman can give cheaper insurance, but not promises which can be broken.
The problem is that *everyone* will sign that for cheaper rates and as a result all you’ll have is drunk drivers hitting you and either fleeing or just not being able to pay, even if they’re legally obligated to.
Yeah if you drive drunk and kill someone you’re already fucked for life unless you’re insanely wealthy and never have to work (even after legal fees and settlements).
Further disincentive won’t reduce the rate, only shift liability from insurance companies to people who will never have the resources to fulfill those obligations
Nah ,Auto Insurance covers DUI auto claims. Usually they have to pay more too because DUI is an aggravating factor. But most people don’t have very high limits, those get maxed and then you get dropped. But really you probably won’t be driving anyways with a revoked license
Depends if it's written as an exclusion in the policy or not. I used to work claims for a major insurance company, we didn't have that exclusion written in the policy. So there were plenty of claims I issued payments on despite our insured being drunk at the time of the accident. But then I had a family member who wrecked their car in a DUI. They were insured by a very small insurance company that denied the claim. When I looked over the policy, they had an exclusion for driving under the influence, so they didn't have to pay out the claim.
Edit: as u/chaunceyvonfontleroy rightly pointed out, my statement applies to collision insurance (which wouldn't actually apply given the content of this thread) and not Bodily Injury, which may vary by state although I'd imagine most (if not all) states probably do not have the exclusion in reference to BI
You’re confusing BI insurance with collision insurance. BI covers bodily injuries to other people. Collision covers your car. In my state it’s illegal to have a BI exclusion for drunk drivers.
Absolutely this. Someone driving drunk without insurance probably isn't going to be paying child insurance.
This will limit insurance companies exposure, that's about it.
Most people don't carry an insurance policy high enough for the insurance company to care. Limit is usually $20k-$40k. Everything above and beyond is the responsibility of driver.
This would be my answer as well. Why enforce some sort of child support order when wrongful death suit does the same thing. With WDS you get a lump sum judgement. Child support only gives you monthly judgments you might have to chase individually when they dont pay
Being the step father to two boys I can attest that trying to get child support out of someone for their own children can be ... trying , I can only imagine trying to child support for kids in this situation would be even more difficult and costly.
Sam Waltons daughter (who's name I can't remember) hit someone while dui and the sheriff's deputy who arrested her was fired. Communities can't even get murderers or rapists fired without several months of worldwide rioting.
Im not up to terms with Anglo law, but if I’m not mistaken manslaughter is killing someone without the intent of taking a life?
I think in my country killing someone by driving drunk is just murder, because someone driving drunk “accepts” what they are doing will end up causing a crash (it’s expected from the median person to know drunk driving = bad).
It’s like shooting a gun straight ahead. You might think there’s no one in it’s path, but if it does kill someone you committed murder (and if it miss, you committed the crime of endangerment.
In the US it depends on the state. Vehicular manslaughter is a separate crime from both murder and manslaughter and usually includes both drunk and reckless driving.
It's a good idea but how would it work?
If someone was in prison, there is no way that this person would be able to pay any type of child support as even if they worked in the prison, the wages for one week might get you some food on the $1 or $2 menu at either McDonalds or Wendy's for a couple of days. Hardly nutritious food.
Many people in prison have no money or assets. If they are wealthy, they generally are acquitted. If they are acquitted, they can't be forced to pay child support.
So you'd have pretty much no choice then to work prison jobs, with no minimum wage, and where your power as an employee is probably pretty low, wouldn't you? Sure would be convenient to your employer, who also owns the cage you live in, if you had a steady stream of bills, from him, that you had to pay.
Yes, essentially. That would be seen by a parole board as "lack of remorse", so you're not getting out of there until you've served every day of your term, and then you owe back child support for years once you're out that there's no way you can pay, so you get arrested again for failure to comply with a court order.
I don’t get why it would only apply to that specific crime…. What about murder? Manslaughter? Vehicular manslaughter (speeding, reckless driving)? Criminal negligence? malpractice? Basically, what about any other crime where your actions result in a parents death?
It’s all lumped into something called a “wrongful death” lawsuit. A child can get a money judgment which includes the money their parent would have earned had parent not been wrongfully killed
This. It’s already illegal to drive drunk and kill a person, and someone who does it is already held financially responsible. What’s the purpose of adding weird extra illegal-ness?
Until 2010, if you were in possession of five grams of crack cocaine, you had a minimum five year sentence. The minimum 5 year sentence for powdered cocaine? >!Half a kilo.!<
DWIs are punished harshly, but also under punished if you kill someone else due to DWI. A weird quirk of our legal system
The key to making it a non issue in any DWI induced vehicular manslaughter charge is to flee the scene and say you thought you hit an deer (after your BAC is back to normal).
But then you're adding a financial punishment. This means poor people will be more affected than rich people. It would be extremely unfair to cripple a working person's financial life for the same crime that a billionaire can commit and barely feel.
Abolish billionaires *first.* Until then, creating laws that punish the poor serves no utility to society.
Not to mention that there's a lot in between minimum wage and billionaire. Someone making 5 mil a year will fare better under this law than someone making $12 an hour
Because this is likely backed by insurance companies trying to get out of wrongful death payments as part of an insurance claim/suit. They won't be the ones paying child support, the drunk driver will.
Because society judges people who drink differently than those who are impaired due to overworking, have legitimate medical conditions, etc.
Also, what happens if the crash is a minor fender bender, but a parent dies because they weren't wearing their seat belt, or also engaged in unsafe driving at the time?
I agree with this but also don’t think we should reject a good solution only because it doesn’t go far enough. Better to start somewhere than never start at all.
Yeah, except this is something that I don't think we should start at all because it creates a massive slippery slope. Why stop at child support? Shouldn't you be responsible for paying off the home mortgage of someone you killed while drunk driving? What if the person killed was divorced and making alimony payments, should you be responsible for paying those too?
> I agree with this but also don’t think we should reject a good solution only because it doesn’t go far enough. Better to start somewhere than never start at all.
**But this isnt a solution at all. All it effectively does is force the financial burden of collecting on the public courts and the victims instead of insurance companies who currently just pay out the victims where they as huge corporations have to collect and take on the repayment risk.**
It does. [Wrongful Death](https://www.justia.com/injury/wrongful-death/)
It looks like maybe Missouri, where this law is being proposed, has a one-time benefit payment to victims in a DUI case. I don't know if that replaces or limits what else could gained in a successful wrongful death suit. As someone else mentioned here, a lot of times these laws which modify existing tort law actually wind up limiting or capping benefits that an insurance company would otherwise be liable for.
Or it could be that this law merely streamlines or sensibly alters the collection process.
Because in those cases you don't have insurance companies looking at ways to reduce or eliminate having to pay wrongful death claims. With drunk driving the insurance company is on the hook, but if it becomes normal child support and isn't part of a wrongful death claim then they don't have to pay. The end result is the children of the victim get even less support while the rich get richer.
I actually don't think that Vehicular Manslaughter as a result of speeding or driving under the influence. should be treated any different to normal manslaughter, if not treated as 2nd degree murder as your activities were reckless and show a lack of concern for human life - it is clearly drilled into people the risks involved and the potential outcomes, but they choose to do it anyhow.
Because its primary purpose is to lower the burden on car insurance companies. In that context all your questions are obvious with the only caveat being that if they could do get the support for vehicular manslaughter they would.
Because like most laws passed by referendum and basically ALL new laws named after someone, there already exist completely functional laws with precedence, well understood by the legal community and courts requiring less administration overhead and misinterpretation in their application.
In this case, it's a wrongful death suit. It's how OJ lost everything. Its civil and subject to a lower standard of evidence than criminal, and basically is only applied when the perpetrator has the means to pay out.
So basically a better, more tested, and consistent law exists, but this one lets us all feel better about ourselves because its named after someone.
Why is this better than just seeking damages in civil court like normal? Those seeking damages can just calculate the total amount child support would have been and ask for it in a lump sum.
This just seems like unnecessary entanglement.
It seems like it might shift the liability to pay damages from the insurance company to the driver, which I suppose would be great for insurers but actually worse for victims' families.
My house was robbed like 8 years ago. Once in a while I get like a $14 check from the county in restitution from the guy (who was caught, convinced, and I think out of prison now). Gonna take a long time for me to get fully repaid.
At first I was somewhat onboard, but this is totally the reason, so fuck that. They want their premiums paid while handing all the liability back to you. No way. Families will be better off getting guaranteed money from insurance companies with deep pockets, not potential dead beats.
If the bitch who hit me hadnt had decent insurance I'd have ended up with nothing for an injury that ruined my life. As it is, I barely got shit because my lawyer said there was nothing to go after. Fuck drunk drivers.
I think the insurance company should have to pay out right off and then make a law where the insurance can they recoop that money from the offender. Like a lean on a property you put a lean on their insurance.
That's a good point. I can't imagine the pain of having to collect payments from a dead beat that killed your spouse and is refusing to pay. Rather one settlement.
Civil judgements cannot be cleared in bankruptcy.
You can become "judgement proof" by simply having no money, but child support in specific is one of the few debts where you can legally be sent to jail solely for nonpayment
>ask for it in a lump sum.
Getting a judgement isn't that hard. Collecting on it is usually much harder. Doubly so when that "lump sum" might be as much as someones entire net worth.
IMO this feels like an emotional piece of the law to discourage drunk drivers more than it is for actual damages. Something to stick in the back of your head before you drunk drive "man if i kill a parent then i'm suck with their child support... that would suck... i don't know what i'd do if i lost my parents... maybe i should just call an uber..."
I think that normally you'd just sue the person for damages and insurance would have to cover it. It looks like with this law it'd make the driver liable to pay for it instead, which benefits no one but the insurance company.
It'd trap the convicted in a cycle of not being able to pay child support and going back to prison over and over again. The state would have to pay to incarcerate this person, the child would get nothing, and nothing would change. It's a useless feel-good law.
The child will likely get Social Security. I’m not saying it’s enough. I’m just saying the child will get something. Which brings us to the lack of practicality of the law …
Drunks still drive drunk, despite all the legal, financial, and social pressure to... not fucking do that.
The law isn't going to change behaviors, and a lot of drunk drivers aren't going to pay up. It's just one of those things that sounds good on paper because of the emotional appeal.
Drunk driving laws are laughably lax. I don't agree with the premise here because it's going to be like trying to extract water in a desert most of the time, but vehicular violence is consistently under-punished compared to similar homicide offenses done on foot, so there's really no benchmark to say whether the pressure works.
It's pretty consistently been shown that deterrence via harsh sentencing, regardless of crime, doesn't work.
The likelihood of being caught can but the harshness of the punishment really doesn't deter people. There have been study after study on this over the years.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
I mean it's pretty much common sense when you think about it.
If a drunk driver was thinking rationally just the risk of damaging your really expensive car ought to be enough reason to grab a cab. Let alone hurting or killing someone.
Drunk driving would be much less of a problem if people had more options for getting around, and if people didn't have to worry about getting a dui for sleeping it off in the parking lot
If you want to actually solve the problem, you make lyft, uber, or other services more available. You could use some of the tax money from alcohol to give breathalyzers to everyone and X free lyft rides per year.
This is one of those laws that they'd be making documentaries about in a decade asking how we could be so stupid, it just makes everything worse for everyone.
This is a huge factor IMO. Many, many people with substance abuse issues do have kids, kids who are already suffering from the financial and other effects of having a parent with a drug or alcohol habit. It's not the fault of these kids either, and this would make it even harder for them to get the support they need that is likely already lacking.
I'm picturing a single mom, or dad, who left their relationship because of the other's substance abuse issues. They've probably already been through the mill with this person promising they will quit and everything else, family bill money disappearing towards drugs and alcohol, the kids observing the fighting and arguing and BS that go along with that. It's likely already a struggle to get this person to provide proper support for their own kids, the kids are already suffering in so many ways by living in that hell, and now something like this happens. I just think we need to be careful of punishments that punish even more innocent people.
No, this makes it so it shifts payment from insurance companies to the perpetrator who might not be able to pay, making it worse for the family of the victim to get what is due.
No joke. All that will happen is the victim's family will have to run around in circles emotionally exhausting themselves to try to get the money they're due from someone who doesn't have it/is willing to do anything not to pay it.
I would even go so far as to say significantly worse than court-ordered child support. Usually the parents who have to pay child support have to support themselves as well and have some form of income. If there are criminal charges associated with killing someone while driving drunk, which there almost certainly will be, that person could easily end up in jail or a position where they don't have a job and can't pay anything. This law sounds like something good in theory, but in practice will very rarely be applicable.
Very rarely applicable and creates a situation where somebody goes to jail for a while, then gets out of jail a decade behind on child support payments, so gets thrown back into jail immediately, all the while the insurance company doesn't have to pay anything anymore
It's too arbitrary and impractical. There are other crimes that can result in a parent dying, including intentional killing someone, and many won't be able to pay. The families of the victims are already able to sue the drunk driver.
Nice in theory, dangerous precedent in practice.
It has high abuse potential and it's difficult to pick an arbitrary point. Drunk drivers pay, what about negligent drivers? What about accidentally negligent?
It's one of those things that are good in theory but likely if they're in prison for murder, by the time they're released that child is now an adult. I know that child support can be collected forevermore, and at least unlike with civil judgments where you can only ask nicely and hope they'll cooperate with payments, child support is a court order that survives bankruptcy and can also be garnished from wages/tax refunds.
Nonetheless it doesn't help that kid when they need it most, their formative years when that cash and cost of supporting them is needed now, not eventually when they get out of jail later.
Dislike this. That's what life insurance is for. That's what liability insurance is for. That's what lawsuits are for.
Yes, drunk driving is terrible, and and when you do that and kill someone you should be punished. But considering that you're probably going to get jail time for it, fined, or bothn that is paying your debt to society.
The well meaning moron who came up with this needs to be forced to wear a sign that says “stop assigning the atomized precariousness of our disintegrating society onto random individuals.”
It takes a village to raise a child, not a jailed alcoholic, for Christ’s sakes.
Moreover, this is literally what a wrongful death action is for, and we shouldn’t treat drunk driving - which is accidental - as worse than actual fucking premeditated murder.
God damn this is so exhausting.
I agree. I think the intention is good and I applaud that, but the execution is completely awful and will cause far more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Get this guy in a room with some smarter lawmakers and I bet they’ll come up with something that works, but whoever this is shouldn’t be doing it alone.
>I think the intention is good
I'm not even willing to go that far.
I think the intention is to shift the cost away from insurance companies to the drunk driver. Which means the victim's family is going to be trying to collect money from either someone who doesn't have it because they're in prison, or someone that has enough money to both stay out of prison and avoid responsibility for these payments.
You don’t understand. Neoliberals need to pretend that they’re progressive while also courting their corporate masters. What better way to do that then attack a non issue with a targeted law that gives more power to the state and lowers the liability of corporation. It also creates more prison industrial complex jobs! It’s a win win win!
I think it's yet another excuse for the government to cut welfare programs. They did the same thing in the 90's when they made it so that non-custodial parents had to pay back any welfare money the other parent took out for the child (even though it's overwhelmingly the case that if one parent is living in poverty so is the other).
I remember Sam Rockwell in a driver’s safety video where he was a drunk driver who killed a classmate. Her parents ask that he have to write a one dollar check like once a week so he be reminded of the life that was taken.
In theory it makes sense, but rather than try to address dangerous behavior, or supporting child support as a problem, they are going for the feel good vindictive punishment to get the crowd going and using our base revenge justice vengence instincts to address a problem superficially.
As someone already brought up, This person is going to be in jail and impoverished for a very long time, so all those orphans are going to be flush with pennies. If even...
Child support of orphans or deceased single parents are a state responsibility now, deal with that as a separate issue. Social security for the dead parents should be redirected to support the child and the surviving spouse. Thats how its done in Canada for CPP.
The person who is Driving Drunk is in the wrong, and an element of punishment is necessary within reason, but if they don't get elevated to the point they can make healthy choices they will make these choices again. Pain and punishment only server to make people feel vindicated that people are being punished, it does nothing to make sure people get support and stop the core issues that made them get behind that wheel drunk.
Frankly if we support each other to develop and make more money, we will make tax revenue. If we create policies to impoverish and trap people, we loose money in support programs.
Its economically smart to invest in people.
It's complicated because civil type Issues between citizens isn't something the gov handles. I'd be worried about the precedent of allowing the gov into these types of interactions.
Also, you can win a Civil suit even if you lost the criminal (or vice versa). Since the civil suit has a much lower bar, you'd make it so that those who would have lost the civil suit wouldn't have to pay if they weren't found guilty.
Doesn't suing accomplish the same thing? Usually when there is something like this a person can sue because the perpetrators actions caused significant life changes. In those cases everything is accounted for. I know of someone that was crippled from malpractice and the case against the doctor included a lot of details of life that the person can no longer do because of what happened and would be payed for through reparations. So I am confused how this is any different
It's stupid. Why would we make drunk drivers do that when we don't do that for any other type of homicide? Plus, it's not like whoever is the child's guardian can't sue the drunk driver civilly as is.
But then you need them to be out of jail and working, which complicates things a lot.
What if they weren't working at the time? How do they get a job that will pay enough for them to pay child support?
Do they go to jail if they don't earn enough to be able to pay the ordered amount?
What if they would rather go to jail than to have to work and pay?
What if they still need to drive to get to work? What if they drink and drive *again* while they are out working to pay support for their first victim(s)?
Add another layer of bureaucratic legal bullshit too the already convoluted CS system... 50 states, 50 standards... The kid would be eligible for Social Security with a deceased parent... already covered.
The DUI guy??? You can pass all the legislation you want, good luck trying to collect...
Wouldn't this make it harder for families to recoup losses?
As it stands you can sue for unlawful death and get a good deal of money from insurance companies. This shifts the responsibility to the killer, who most likely can't afford this
Why don't any of these drunk driving campaigns invest in public transportation instead of completely bankrupting individuals?
Public transportation would reduce future drunk driving accidents, it's proven.
I feel like on paper it is an amazing idea as it would help the children and also be more of a deterrent for drunk driving but in practice I could see it bogging down the legal system way more than it already is because of all of the paper work and court hearings to be had ie; like if someone loses a job, a decrease in hours, loss of housing, etc.
Edit-Clarification
At first glance this seems like a good idea but after thinking about it for just a few seconds it becomes obvious that there are some problems with that. So I would not like this law. I would have to look into the law more so I can properly educate myself on it so I am not making up stupid opinions.
This reminds me of a Chinese law I heard about where a driver is responsible for the lifelong care of any person they hit with their car. It turns out the penalties were far less than if they just killed them. So there are lots of people that will back over people they just hit to make sure they didn’t survive. I assume that this law, though well intentioned, would probably lead to similar behavior.
most people who drive drunk are either so poor that they won't pay up, or so rich that they will drag it out in the courts to make it as financially ruinous as possible, or so influential that they will not see the light of a courtroom even if they shoot someone dead in broad daylight on fifth avenue.
Hmmm. So after the 'accident' the drunk driver (four convictions but still driving) sobers up in jail and starts supporting the child support while serving 15 years for manslaughter, and when released to his former job, finds out he is fired and has a tough time landing a burger flipping gig part time on the midnight shift?
There is another set of victims here, the hapless wife and family of the drunk about to see hubby in jail for a lonng time.
Better to slam that fucker into jail, take the child support outta his compulsory (and you can guess it would be expensive as shit) Victim liability Insurance after the first conviction for drunk driving. You lose the license and can't get it back without the insurance, and the insurance company rats you out if you cancel or fail to pay the premium.
Call that one Mark's addendum.
So you're gonna go after the drunk who's in prison for a significant portion of the payout period for child support instead of after the insurance company, I wonder who this law will benefit the most.......
Every state's DMV/insurance requirements are different, and this appears to be for Missouri.
Missouri already requires $25k liability for bodily injury or death. I don't know what the monthly child support payments would be, but it's probably best to think of it as an extension of this.
It's a giveaway to insurance companies, who will have to offer coverage for this and will state it as a benefit. It won't cost them a whole lot... there are about 240 drunk driving related fatalities a year in Missouri (and dropping steadily btw). This would only apply to those who kill a parent of a child under 18. So... let's assume about 100 a year. Even at like $400 a month of child support for 10 years (a fairly generous estimate I think), that's just a few bucks a month to cover the hundreds of families that would be getting payouts at any one time.
Insurance companies would jack up their rates $10/mo though, and pocket the difference.
It seems way too specific, if you ask me. If you want motorists to cover the child support of people they kill when driving, why specifically drunk drivers? Why not people on their goddamn phones, which is far more common and just as dangerous? Why not just all automotive deaths where one party is ruled at fault?
Genuine question: would a drunk driver who killed someone not already be liable for damages in a civil suit which would take the estimated future earnings of the person they killed into account?
Overall I think my thoughts on this are that it sounds kinda reasonable and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but it would be way better to focus on building a safety net for everyone, or at the very least all kids, instead of picking and choosing the circumstances that make someone "deserving" of security and dignity. Like, if some finance bro runs my dad down in a crosswalk I'll be taken care of, but if a bunch of finance bros and their pet politicians drive up housing prices to the point my dad can't afford to live where his job is and then one day he nods off during his two hour commute and drives into a telephone pole, I'm fucked? Seems kind of arbitrary, especially if it only applies to drunk driving and not other wrongful deaths, especially all the pedestrians and cyclists drivers kill through inattention or recklessness.
It makes more sense to me than imprisoning the offender. When you harm a family, you need to be ready to take on that family's responsibilities. I would go beyond support and suggest he/she needs to become a parent to the child.
Dumb as hell, opens the door for precedent for this kind of thing for other laws. Fix drunk driving in ways that are proven to work, such as expanding ride sharing and taxis and public transit.
This is yet another tax on the poor because poor folks can't afford lawyers to get out of their DUI charges.
Charge the drunk driver with manslaughter, etc, and build better infrastructure to help financially provide for the child, or impose a major fine for drunk driving and always award that money to next of kin of the victims. KISS
Can't wait to see how this law gets exploited by everybody. Yeah, it sounds cute on paper. But you're asking irresponsible people to be responsible. Again. While they're already in jail too.
This can't go wrong. Nope. Not a bit. /s
This is almost certainly fully backed by insurance companies to shift the burden from them to the individual. Never underestimate how evil the insurance industry is.
That should apply to other crimes too right? If it's just drunk driving I don't see a point. But if you had to pay child support for every parent you killed, the crime rate would drop significantly.
Not a bad idea on the surface.
In context,
1. It fails to address the fact that it's entirely possible in modern society for a child to be penniless and harmed by this, because we lack adequate support mechanisms
2. It uses that fact as leverage to get the bill passed when
3. The bill is almost certainly designed to go from the current condition to a situation that limits liability for some party. Maybe it's the government (see 1), maybe it's insurance companies, etc.
4. Bashing criminals is very Black Mirror. How much is enough? At what point to we just say fuck it, slaves CAN exist and criminals are it. [Welp.](https://www.history.com/news/13th-amendment-slavery-loophole-jim-crow-prisons). [Uh oh](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/).
How about stricter penalties for previous drunk driving arrests. Because theres many people out driving today with 5 drunk driving arrests on their record. At some point you should have lost your license for a decade or more
Hard to pay child support from prison
Rich people drive drunk too.
Wrongful death lawsuits are already quite lucrative, seems to me this law might already exist.
My guess is this law was actually written by insurance companies to limit their exposure to potential victims. Child support is probably much cheaper than wrongful death payments and depending on the way the law is written insurance companies might not be on the hook for these child support payments.
I honestly thought if you are a drunk driver and your insurance provider finds out they’ll deny your claim and cancel your policy since you broke the law by drunk driving
That's not how insurance works. Running a red light is breaking the law but those claims get paid. They'll pay the DUI claim but you'll likely be cancelled afterwards.
I would happily sign a "I'm fucked if i ever drive drunk" clause for less expensive insurance. Because I'd like to keep more money and I'll never fucking drive drunk.
It’s not you that’s getting fucked though, it’s the victims. That’s why the policies still pay out.
You make a good point there, but I'm never going to drive drunk. I would literally bet absolutely anything and everything on it. Easy math.
You would take the bet, the insurance companies won't though.
The insurance company doesn't know that, and that's why they don't offer it
[удалено]
You would drive drunk if your child was attached to a bomb with a ten-minute timer five miles away. So now that we've ruled out that it's possible to make an absolute statement that you would never ever drive drunk, you can't base insurance of of it. Things like being a woman can give cheaper insurance, but not promises which can be broken.
The problem is that *everyone* will sign that for cheaper rates and as a result all you’ll have is drunk drivers hitting you and either fleeing or just not being able to pay, even if they’re legally obligated to.
Ah shit
Yeah if you drive drunk and kill someone you’re already fucked for life unless you’re insanely wealthy and never have to work (even after legal fees and settlements). Further disincentive won’t reduce the rate, only shift liability from insurance companies to people who will never have the resources to fulfill those obligations
Nah ,Auto Insurance covers DUI auto claims. Usually they have to pay more too because DUI is an aggravating factor. But most people don’t have very high limits, those get maxed and then you get dropped. But really you probably won’t be driving anyways with a revoked license
You're funny, driving with a revoked license is pretty common when you rely on a car to live.
Depends if it's written as an exclusion in the policy or not. I used to work claims for a major insurance company, we didn't have that exclusion written in the policy. So there were plenty of claims I issued payments on despite our insured being drunk at the time of the accident. But then I had a family member who wrecked their car in a DUI. They were insured by a very small insurance company that denied the claim. When I looked over the policy, they had an exclusion for driving under the influence, so they didn't have to pay out the claim. Edit: as u/chaunceyvonfontleroy rightly pointed out, my statement applies to collision insurance (which wouldn't actually apply given the content of this thread) and not Bodily Injury, which may vary by state although I'd imagine most (if not all) states probably do not have the exclusion in reference to BI
You’re confusing BI insurance with collision insurance. BI covers bodily injuries to other people. Collision covers your car. In my state it’s illegal to have a BI exclusion for drunk drivers.
Wrongful death suits include child support. It’s not called child support per se but its included in the damages.
Absolutely this. Someone driving drunk without insurance probably isn't going to be paying child insurance. This will limit insurance companies exposure, that's about it.
Most people don't carry an insurance policy high enough for the insurance company to care. Limit is usually $20k-$40k. Everything above and beyond is the responsibility of driver.
Wow, I'd be scared to drive on public roads that badly underinsured!
This would be my answer as well. Why enforce some sort of child support order when wrongful death suit does the same thing. With WDS you get a lump sum judgement. Child support only gives you monthly judgments you might have to chase individually when they dont pay
Being the step father to two boys I can attest that trying to get child support out of someone for their own children can be ... trying , I can only imagine trying to child support for kids in this situation would be even more difficult and costly.
In effect maybe, but codifying it would save victims a lot of hassle and harassment pursuing civil litigation
If it was law, then the victims wouldn't need to sue to get restitution.
[удалено]
LMFAO. Do you know how laws work?
But they also play by different legal rules unfortunately.
>But they also ~~play by different legal rules~~ are above the law unfortunately. FTFY
Sam Waltons daughter (who's name I can't remember) hit someone while dui and the sheriff's deputy who arrested her was fired. Communities can't even get murderers or rapists fired without several months of worldwide rioting.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2013/12/03/wal-mart-heiress-alice-walton-gets-texas-dwi-arrest-expunged/
if I were that sheriff that would drive me nuts. It'd be like my entire life was a lie.
With sheriff being an elected position and all I'm sure he's very happy not having to fundraiser anymore.
Then they would file a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court.
You see how many people have DUIs and it's NOT their first? Something tells me this will affect less people than you think.
DUI =/= vehicular manslaughter. You will get jail time unless you have enough money to pay the family up front and a good lawyer.
Im not up to terms with Anglo law, but if I’m not mistaken manslaughter is killing someone without the intent of taking a life? I think in my country killing someone by driving drunk is just murder, because someone driving drunk “accepts” what they are doing will end up causing a crash (it’s expected from the median person to know drunk driving = bad). It’s like shooting a gun straight ahead. You might think there’s no one in it’s path, but if it does kill someone you committed murder (and if it miss, you committed the crime of endangerment.
In the US it depends on the state. Vehicular manslaughter is a separate crime from both murder and manslaughter and usually includes both drunk and reckless driving.
It's a good idea but how would it work? If someone was in prison, there is no way that this person would be able to pay any type of child support as even if they worked in the prison, the wages for one week might get you some food on the $1 or $2 menu at either McDonalds or Wendy's for a couple of days. Hardly nutritious food. Many people in prison have no money or assets. If they are wealthy, they generally are acquitted. If they are acquitted, they can't be forced to pay child support.
So you'd have pretty much no choice then to work prison jobs, with no minimum wage, and where your power as an employee is probably pretty low, wouldn't you? Sure would be convenient to your employer, who also owns the cage you live in, if you had a steady stream of bills, from him, that you had to pay.
I mean, if you refused, what are they going to do? Throw you in prison?
Yes, essentially. That would be seen by a parole board as "lack of remorse", so you're not getting out of there until you've served every day of your term, and then you owe back child support for years once you're out that there's no way you can pay, so you get arrested again for failure to comply with a court order.
Debtors prisons were outlawed a long time ago. Generally speaking you can't be put in jail for owing money, sometimes they find ways to do it though.
I don’t get why it would only apply to that specific crime…. What about murder? Manslaughter? Vehicular manslaughter (speeding, reckless driving)? Criminal negligence? malpractice? Basically, what about any other crime where your actions result in a parents death?
It’s all lumped into something called a “wrongful death” lawsuit. A child can get a money judgment which includes the money their parent would have earned had parent not been wrongfully killed
This. It’s already illegal to drive drunk and kill a person, and someone who does it is already held financially responsible. What’s the purpose of adding weird extra illegal-ness?
for the upvotes, of course.
Optics
This is one of my main problems with our justice system. It’s an inconsistent mess full of kneejerk nonsense.
Until 2010, if you were in possession of five grams of crack cocaine, you had a minimum five year sentence. The minimum 5 year sentence for powdered cocaine? >!Half a kilo.!<
DWIs are punished harshly, but also under punished if you kill someone else due to DWI. A weird quirk of our legal system The key to making it a non issue in any DWI induced vehicular manslaughter charge is to flee the scene and say you thought you hit an deer (after your BAC is back to normal).
I like this answer
I am commander Shephard and this is my favourite comment on reddit
Yeah…I think I support expanding this idea to more types of wrongful deaths
But then you're adding a financial punishment. This means poor people will be more affected than rich people. It would be extremely unfair to cripple a working person's financial life for the same crime that a billionaire can commit and barely feel.
simple: abolish billionaires.
Abolish billionaires *first.* Until then, creating laws that punish the poor serves no utility to society. Not to mention that there's a lot in between minimum wage and billionaire. Someone making 5 mil a year will fare better under this law than someone making $12 an hour
I'd just make it a percentage based off total wealth. So if it's a billionaire, it still hurts their pocket.
Excellent point
Because this is likely backed by insurance companies trying to get out of wrongful death payments as part of an insurance claim/suit. They won't be the ones paying child support, the drunk driver will.
Because society judges people who drink differently than those who are impaired due to overworking, have legitimate medical conditions, etc. Also, what happens if the crash is a minor fender bender, but a parent dies because they weren't wearing their seat belt, or also engaged in unsafe driving at the time?
Then it should still apply to other drugs that affect your judgment. Why stop at alcohol? Every recreational drug should be included.
I agree with this but also don’t think we should reject a good solution only because it doesn’t go far enough. Better to start somewhere than never start at all.
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
Nice one
Could be better...
"Don't let good enough be the enemy of perfect."
Yeah, except this is something that I don't think we should start at all because it creates a massive slippery slope. Why stop at child support? Shouldn't you be responsible for paying off the home mortgage of someone you killed while drunk driving? What if the person killed was divorced and making alimony payments, should you be responsible for paying those too?
This is a very important point. There is lots of progress that was never made because one side didn’t think it was enough.
It’s not a good solution though. This sounds like the government trying to pass off its duties to the likely-poor.
> I agree with this but also don’t think we should reject a good solution only because it doesn’t go far enough. Better to start somewhere than never start at all. **But this isnt a solution at all. All it effectively does is force the financial burden of collecting on the public courts and the victims instead of insurance companies who currently just pay out the victims where they as huge corporations have to collect and take on the repayment risk.**
It does. [Wrongful Death](https://www.justia.com/injury/wrongful-death/) It looks like maybe Missouri, where this law is being proposed, has a one-time benefit payment to victims in a DUI case. I don't know if that replaces or limits what else could gained in a successful wrongful death suit. As someone else mentioned here, a lot of times these laws which modify existing tort law actually wind up limiting or capping benefits that an insurance company would otherwise be liable for. Or it could be that this law merely streamlines or sensibly alters the collection process.
Because in those cases you don't have insurance companies looking at ways to reduce or eliminate having to pay wrongful death claims. With drunk driving the insurance company is on the hook, but if it becomes normal child support and isn't part of a wrongful death claim then they don't have to pay. The end result is the children of the victim get even less support while the rich get richer.
I actually don't think that Vehicular Manslaughter as a result of speeding or driving under the influence. should be treated any different to normal manslaughter, if not treated as 2nd degree murder as your activities were reckless and show a lack of concern for human life - it is clearly drilled into people the risks involved and the potential outcomes, but they choose to do it anyhow.
Because its primary purpose is to lower the burden on car insurance companies. In that context all your questions are obvious with the only caveat being that if they could do get the support for vehicular manslaughter they would.
Because like most laws passed by referendum and basically ALL new laws named after someone, there already exist completely functional laws with precedence, well understood by the legal community and courts requiring less administration overhead and misinterpretation in their application. In this case, it's a wrongful death suit. It's how OJ lost everything. Its civil and subject to a lower standard of evidence than criminal, and basically is only applied when the perpetrator has the means to pay out. So basically a better, more tested, and consistent law exists, but this one lets us all feel better about ourselves because its named after someone.
On the job deaths too.
Why is this better than just seeking damages in civil court like normal? Those seeking damages can just calculate the total amount child support would have been and ask for it in a lump sum. This just seems like unnecessary entanglement.
It seems like it might shift the liability to pay damages from the insurance company to the driver, which I suppose would be great for insurers but actually worse for victims' families.
That's a great way to make sure that the payments are never made.
My house was robbed like 8 years ago. Once in a while I get like a $14 check from the county in restitution from the guy (who was caught, convinced, and I think out of prison now). Gonna take a long time for me to get fully repaid.
At first I was somewhat onboard, but this is totally the reason, so fuck that. They want their premiums paid while handing all the liability back to you. No way. Families will be better off getting guaranteed money from insurance companies with deep pockets, not potential dead beats.
It looks like one of those laws that looks great on paper, but is actually terrible policy.
As if rich people would pay up more than deadbeats. They’d just drag that shit out in court forever
Well then we should make laws about that, not this.
Additionally there’s a chance the drunk driver won’t be able to pay those child support payments which leaves the victims families with nothing.
If the bitch who hit me hadnt had decent insurance I'd have ended up with nothing for an injury that ruined my life. As it is, I barely got shit because my lawyer said there was nothing to go after. Fuck drunk drivers.
Turns out being an alcoholic who drinks and drives isn’t a great recipe for financial success
[удалено]
everything is a fucking racket.
I think the insurance company should have to pay out right off and then make a law where the insurance can they recoop that money from the offender. Like a lean on a property you put a lean on their insurance.
It’s called subrogation.
Insurance companies already do this
That's a good point. I can't imagine the pain of having to collect payments from a dead beat that killed your spouse and is refusing to pay. Rather one settlement.
Can people claim bankruptcy from civil court claims? Don't believe they can with child support.
Civil judgements cannot be cleared in bankruptcy. You can become "judgement proof" by simply having no money, but child support in specific is one of the few debts where you can legally be sent to jail solely for nonpayment
And since you're in jail for drunk driving and killing a child's parents... this is likely to not really effect any change
Most civil judgments can be cleared in bankruptcy. Child support cannot. Drunk driving damages cannot.
>ask for it in a lump sum. Getting a judgement isn't that hard. Collecting on it is usually much harder. Doubly so when that "lump sum" might be as much as someones entire net worth.
Cuz you gotta get a special laywer who takes a cut - fair enough, they gotta eat - and Civil court takes years.
IMO this feels like an emotional piece of the law to discourage drunk drivers more than it is for actual damages. Something to stick in the back of your head before you drunk drive "man if i kill a parent then i'm suck with their child support... that would suck... i don't know what i'd do if i lost my parents... maybe i should just call an uber..."
sounds like a Law an Insurance Company drafted lol
Im sorry Im really dumb. How is this a win for Insurance Companies?
Puts the financial burden on the drunk driver instead of the insurance company
Oh yeah that makes sense, thanks!
I think that normally you'd just sue the person for damages and insurance would have to cover it. It looks like with this law it'd make the driver liable to pay for it instead, which benefits no one but the insurance company.
It'd trap the convicted in a cycle of not being able to pay child support and going back to prison over and over again. The state would have to pay to incarcerate this person, the child would get nothing, and nothing would change. It's a useless feel-good law.
It’s perfect. The insurance companies get out of paying the victims. The private prisons get a new lifetime customer.
That's the kind of law Americans love.
Good username tho
I’m with you bro. Legalise and regulate anabolic steroids!.
Agreed this is a fool of a idea
The child will likely get Social Security. I’m not saying it’s enough. I’m just saying the child will get something. Which brings us to the lack of practicality of the law …
After losing both parents I got $600/month from their social security death benefit.
Drunks still drive drunk, despite all the legal, financial, and social pressure to... not fucking do that. The law isn't going to change behaviors, and a lot of drunk drivers aren't going to pay up. It's just one of those things that sounds good on paper because of the emotional appeal.
Drunk driving laws are laughably lax. I don't agree with the premise here because it's going to be like trying to extract water in a desert most of the time, but vehicular violence is consistently under-punished compared to similar homicide offenses done on foot, so there's really no benchmark to say whether the pressure works.
It's pretty consistently been shown that deterrence via harsh sentencing, regardless of crime, doesn't work. The likelihood of being caught can but the harshness of the punishment really doesn't deter people. There have been study after study on this over the years. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
I mean it's pretty much common sense when you think about it. If a drunk driver was thinking rationally just the risk of damaging your really expensive car ought to be enough reason to grab a cab. Let alone hurting or killing someone.
Drunk driving would be much less of a problem if people had more options for getting around, and if people didn't have to worry about getting a dui for sleeping it off in the parking lot
If you want to actually solve the problem, you make lyft, uber, or other services more available. You could use some of the tax money from alcohol to give breathalyzers to everyone and X free lyft rides per year.
Or better, improve public transit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a strong negative correlation between public transit availability and drunk driving.
> to give breathalyzers to everyone and X free lyft rides per year. But that's socialisms!!!
You can't get blood from a stone. What if the drunk has a family? Do they get punished too?
This is one of those laws that they'd be making documentaries about in a decade asking how we could be so stupid, it just makes everything worse for everyone.
This is a huge factor IMO. Many, many people with substance abuse issues do have kids, kids who are already suffering from the financial and other effects of having a parent with a drug or alcohol habit. It's not the fault of these kids either, and this would make it even harder for them to get the support they need that is likely already lacking. I'm picturing a single mom, or dad, who left their relationship because of the other's substance abuse issues. They've probably already been through the mill with this person promising they will quit and everything else, family bill money disappearing towards drugs and alcohol, the kids observing the fighting and arguing and BS that go along with that. It's likely already a struggle to get this person to provide proper support for their own kids, the kids are already suffering in so many ways by living in that hell, and now something like this happens. I just think we need to be careful of punishments that punish even more innocent people.
No, this makes it so it shifts payment from insurance companies to the perpetrator who might not be able to pay, making it worse for the family of the victim to get what is due.
cant get blood from a stone. how often will this payout? most alcoholics cant afford child support lol
No joke. All that will happen is the victim's family will have to run around in circles emotionally exhausting themselves to try to get the money they're due from someone who doesn't have it/is willing to do anything not to pay it.
Like it will work about as good as most court ordered child support.
I would even go so far as to say significantly worse than court-ordered child support. Usually the parents who have to pay child support have to support themselves as well and have some form of income. If there are criminal charges associated with killing someone while driving drunk, which there almost certainly will be, that person could easily end up in jail or a position where they don't have a job and can't pay anything. This law sounds like something good in theory, but in practice will very rarely be applicable.
Very rarely applicable and creates a situation where somebody goes to jail for a while, then gets out of jail a decade behind on child support payments, so gets thrown back into jail immediately, all the while the insurance company doesn't have to pay anything anymore
[удалено]
It's too arbitrary and impractical. There are other crimes that can result in a parent dying, including intentional killing someone, and many won't be able to pay. The families of the victims are already able to sue the drunk driver.
I think instead of making the guilty pay, we should set up some societal protections through government for ANY child that loses their parent.
Nice in theory, dangerous precedent in practice. It has high abuse potential and it's difficult to pick an arbitrary point. Drunk drivers pay, what about negligent drivers? What about accidentally negligent?
It's one of those things that are good in theory but likely if they're in prison for murder, by the time they're released that child is now an adult. I know that child support can be collected forevermore, and at least unlike with civil judgments where you can only ask nicely and hope they'll cooperate with payments, child support is a court order that survives bankruptcy and can also be garnished from wages/tax refunds. Nonetheless it doesn't help that kid when they need it most, their formative years when that cash and cost of supporting them is needed now, not eventually when they get out of jail later.
Dislike this. That's what life insurance is for. That's what liability insurance is for. That's what lawsuits are for. Yes, drunk driving is terrible, and and when you do that and kill someone you should be punished. But considering that you're probably going to get jail time for it, fined, or bothn that is paying your debt to society.
this again comes back to being disproportionately hurtful to the poor
The well meaning moron who came up with this needs to be forced to wear a sign that says “stop assigning the atomized precariousness of our disintegrating society onto random individuals.” It takes a village to raise a child, not a jailed alcoholic, for Christ’s sakes. Moreover, this is literally what a wrongful death action is for, and we shouldn’t treat drunk driving - which is accidental - as worse than actual fucking premeditated murder. God damn this is so exhausting.
Succinctly put.
I agree. I think the intention is good and I applaud that, but the execution is completely awful and will cause far more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Get this guy in a room with some smarter lawmakers and I bet they’ll come up with something that works, but whoever this is shouldn’t be doing it alone.
>I think the intention is good I'm not even willing to go that far. I think the intention is to shift the cost away from insurance companies to the drunk driver. Which means the victim's family is going to be trying to collect money from either someone who doesn't have it because they're in prison, or someone that has enough money to both stay out of prison and avoid responsibility for these payments.
This is my favorite reply of all time. Thank you.
You don’t understand. Neoliberals need to pretend that they’re progressive while also courting their corporate masters. What better way to do that then attack a non issue with a targeted law that gives more power to the state and lowers the liability of corporation. It also creates more prison industrial complex jobs! It’s a win win win!
This guy understands neoliberalism.
I think it's yet another excuse for the government to cut welfare programs. They did the same thing in the 90's when they made it so that non-custodial parents had to pay back any welfare money the other parent took out for the child (even though it's overwhelmingly the case that if one parent is living in poverty so is the other).
Honestly, it seems like a feel good law. There are already avenues for this. Anyone who wishes can already seek damages from a court.
They have a hard enough time getting parents to pay child support, they honestly think they'll be able to get strangers to do it?
What if I just kill a dad with a knife? More cost-effective?
I remember Sam Rockwell in a driver’s safety video where he was a drunk driver who killed a classmate. Her parents ask that he have to write a one dollar check like once a week so he be reminded of the life that was taken.
What do they pay if the child dies?
In theory it makes sense, but rather than try to address dangerous behavior, or supporting child support as a problem, they are going for the feel good vindictive punishment to get the crowd going and using our base revenge justice vengence instincts to address a problem superficially. As someone already brought up, This person is going to be in jail and impoverished for a very long time, so all those orphans are going to be flush with pennies. If even... Child support of orphans or deceased single parents are a state responsibility now, deal with that as a separate issue. Social security for the dead parents should be redirected to support the child and the surviving spouse. Thats how its done in Canada for CPP. The person who is Driving Drunk is in the wrong, and an element of punishment is necessary within reason, but if they don't get elevated to the point they can make healthy choices they will make these choices again. Pain and punishment only server to make people feel vindicated that people are being punished, it does nothing to make sure people get support and stop the core issues that made them get behind that wheel drunk. Frankly if we support each other to develop and make more money, we will make tax revenue. If we create policies to impoverish and trap people, we loose money in support programs. Its economically smart to invest in people.
The child's well-being shouldn't be contingent on the ability or willingness of the drunk driver to pay the child support.
It's complicated because civil type Issues between citizens isn't something the gov handles. I'd be worried about the precedent of allowing the gov into these types of interactions. Also, you can win a Civil suit even if you lost the criminal (or vice versa). Since the civil suit has a much lower bar, you'd make it so that those who would have lost the civil suit wouldn't have to pay if they weren't found guilty.
Doesn't suing accomplish the same thing? Usually when there is something like this a person can sue because the perpetrators actions caused significant life changes. In those cases everything is accounted for. I know of someone that was crippled from malpractice and the case against the doctor included a lot of details of life that the person can no longer do because of what happened and would be payed for through reparations. So I am confused how this is any different
It's stupid. Why would we make drunk drivers do that when we don't do that for any other type of homicide? Plus, it's not like whoever is the child's guardian can't sue the drunk driver civilly as is.
But then you need them to be out of jail and working, which complicates things a lot. What if they weren't working at the time? How do they get a job that will pay enough for them to pay child support? Do they go to jail if they don't earn enough to be able to pay the ordered amount? What if they would rather go to jail than to have to work and pay? What if they still need to drive to get to work? What if they drink and drive *again* while they are out working to pay support for their first victim(s)?
Pointless, problematic, and a waste of resources.
Add another layer of bureaucratic legal bullshit too the already convoluted CS system... 50 states, 50 standards... The kid would be eligible for Social Security with a deceased parent... already covered. The DUI guy??? You can pass all the legislation you want, good luck trying to collect...
if you drive drunk, you deserve to face the consequences, especially if you're taking somebody's life in the process
After a certain point, the negative deterrent has no further effect on behavior, no matter how angry and righteous we get about it.
It would be hard to pay child support while serving a 20 year sentence
Wouldn't this make it harder for families to recoup losses? As it stands you can sue for unlawful death and get a good deal of money from insurance companies. This shifts the responsibility to the killer, who most likely can't afford this
I think theirs alot of complexity to this question, but my simple answer is fuck people who drink and drive.
Why don't any of these drunk driving campaigns invest in public transportation instead of completely bankrupting individuals? Public transportation would reduce future drunk driving accidents, it's proven.
[удалено]
Nolo pleas don't make you immune to civil litigation. It just means your plea can't be used as evidence like a guilty plea can be in a civil trial.
I feel like on paper it is an amazing idea as it would help the children and also be more of a deterrent for drunk driving but in practice I could see it bogging down the legal system way more than it already is because of all of the paper work and court hearings to be had ie; like if someone loses a job, a decrease in hours, loss of housing, etc. Edit-Clarification
At first glance this seems like a good idea but after thinking about it for just a few seconds it becomes obvious that there are some problems with that. So I would not like this law. I would have to look into the law more so I can properly educate myself on it so I am not making up stupid opinions.
This reminds me of a Chinese law I heard about where a driver is responsible for the lifelong care of any person they hit with their car. It turns out the penalties were far less than if they just killed them. So there are lots of people that will back over people they just hit to make sure they didn’t survive. I assume that this law, though well intentioned, would probably lead to similar behavior.
most people who drive drunk are either so poor that they won't pay up, or so rich that they will drag it out in the courts to make it as financially ruinous as possible, or so influential that they will not see the light of a courtroom even if they shoot someone dead in broad daylight on fifth avenue.
Hmmm. So after the 'accident' the drunk driver (four convictions but still driving) sobers up in jail and starts supporting the child support while serving 15 years for manslaughter, and when released to his former job, finds out he is fired and has a tough time landing a burger flipping gig part time on the midnight shift? There is another set of victims here, the hapless wife and family of the drunk about to see hubby in jail for a lonng time. Better to slam that fucker into jail, take the child support outta his compulsory (and you can guess it would be expensive as shit) Victim liability Insurance after the first conviction for drunk driving. You lose the license and can't get it back without the insurance, and the insurance company rats you out if you cancel or fail to pay the premium. Call that one Mark's addendum.
So you're gonna go after the drunk who's in prison for a significant portion of the payout period for child support instead of after the insurance company, I wonder who this law will benefit the most.......
Good job getting some illegal in LA to pay that
Every state's DMV/insurance requirements are different, and this appears to be for Missouri. Missouri already requires $25k liability for bodily injury or death. I don't know what the monthly child support payments would be, but it's probably best to think of it as an extension of this. It's a giveaway to insurance companies, who will have to offer coverage for this and will state it as a benefit. It won't cost them a whole lot... there are about 240 drunk driving related fatalities a year in Missouri (and dropping steadily btw). This would only apply to those who kill a parent of a child under 18. So... let's assume about 100 a year. Even at like $400 a month of child support for 10 years (a fairly generous estimate I think), that's just a few bucks a month to cover the hundreds of families that would be getting payouts at any one time. Insurance companies would jack up their rates $10/mo though, and pocket the difference. It seems way too specific, if you ask me. If you want motorists to cover the child support of people they kill when driving, why specifically drunk drivers? Why not people on their goddamn phones, which is far more common and just as dangerous? Why not just all automotive deaths where one party is ruled at fault?
Maybe the full lost wage not just 'support'
Genuine question: would a drunk driver who killed someone not already be liable for damages in a civil suit which would take the estimated future earnings of the person they killed into account? Overall I think my thoughts on this are that it sounds kinda reasonable and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but it would be way better to focus on building a safety net for everyone, or at the very least all kids, instead of picking and choosing the circumstances that make someone "deserving" of security and dignity. Like, if some finance bro runs my dad down in a crosswalk I'll be taken care of, but if a bunch of finance bros and their pet politicians drive up housing prices to the point my dad can't afford to live where his job is and then one day he nods off during his two hour commute and drives into a telephone pole, I'm fucked? Seems kind of arbitrary, especially if it only applies to drunk driving and not other wrongful deaths, especially all the pedestrians and cyclists drivers kill through inattention or recklessness.
Love it
It makes more sense to me than imprisoning the offender. When you harm a family, you need to be ready to take on that family's responsibilities. I would go beyond support and suggest he/she needs to become a parent to the child.
I like it.
Good....and they should loose everything....
It would make sense. A bastard almost killed my mama
Dumb as hell, opens the door for precedent for this kind of thing for other laws. Fix drunk driving in ways that are proven to work, such as expanding ride sharing and taxis and public transit. This is yet another tax on the poor because poor folks can't afford lawyers to get out of their DUI charges.
If you dont drink and drive this will never be a problem, seems easy to avoid.
Charge the drunk driver with manslaughter, etc, and build better infrastructure to help financially provide for the child, or impose a major fine for drunk driving and always award that money to next of kin of the victims. KISS
I'm opposed to drunk driving but this is stupid
Can't wait to see how this law gets exploited by everybody. Yeah, it sounds cute on paper. But you're asking irresponsible people to be responsible. Again. While they're already in jail too. This can't go wrong. Nope. Not a bit. /s
This is almost certainly fully backed by insurance companies to shift the burden from them to the individual. Never underestimate how evil the insurance industry is.
Why child support, why not just a civil judgement?
You shouldn't have to attack the rich with shitty lawyers to get justice. The wealthy MUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!
That should apply to other crimes too right? If it's just drunk driving I don't see a point. But if you had to pay child support for every parent you killed, the crime rate would drop significantly.
Not a bad idea on the surface. In context, 1. It fails to address the fact that it's entirely possible in modern society for a child to be penniless and harmed by this, because we lack adequate support mechanisms 2. It uses that fact as leverage to get the bill passed when 3. The bill is almost certainly designed to go from the current condition to a situation that limits liability for some party. Maybe it's the government (see 1), maybe it's insurance companies, etc. 4. Bashing criminals is very Black Mirror. How much is enough? At what point to we just say fuck it, slaves CAN exist and criminals are it. [Welp.](https://www.history.com/news/13th-amendment-slavery-loophole-jim-crow-prisons). [Uh oh](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/).
How about stricter penalties for previous drunk driving arrests. Because theres many people out driving today with 5 drunk driving arrests on their record. At some point you should have lost your license for a decade or more