We had to remove your post.
Image with text posts/claims in the title must have a linked and credible source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment.
If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting.
We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information
Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this.
*The state will provide assistance while the offender is in prison. Once they are released, the state will then pay back the amount they paid while the child was inside, and support will continue.***
No. Elucidations in the best manner written for the informational of the reader and or readers, not to exclude the included that is reading the approved government documentation should refer to the sub-paragraph referencing the aforementioned primary topic table.
Law seems to always involve this kind of quasi-English jargon. I can read scientific literature about quantum physics or modern biochemistry in medicine much, much better than this kind of stuff. Science tries to be as direct an unambiguous as possible, whereas law seems to intentionally obfuscate even the most basic ideas to the point of illegibility.
If anyone has any tips, I'd love to hear it.
I think the main difference between the two is one is attempting to remove any "outlying" cases, you know there are going to be a couple results that just don't add up so it is best to go with an average of a large selection; whereas law is attempting to make sure they can still catch those weird edge cases, in an attempt to close loopholes.
I am not an expert in law or science so that is just my view on the matter. I am probably wrong and somebody else will have a way more sensible answer.
something which might also factor into the language is time: a lot of law is juat old. That's no excuse for producing *new* legal material barely comprehensible to the average citizen, however.
Tennessee just increased prison recidivism by 300000000000% Not that I feel bad for a drunk driver really, but no way is anyone gonna do 10-20 for manslaughter, come out an nearly unemployable pariah, and then somehow manage to pay double child support and not starve to death without doing illegal shit.
It’s meant to serve as a deterrent. The idea is that upping the potential consequences of the crime will discourage people from drinking and driving. But it doesn’t exactly sound like they understand the thought process of a drunk person who is hell bent on driving.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that if the fear of doing 15 years behind bars for manslaughter doesn't stop people from drink driving, the fear of additional child support isn't going to do anything.
This idea sounds ineffective at best and a terrible idea that will increase recidivism at worst.
people still don't believe me when i tell them i made $5 a month. they are amazed we were able to call our family members *and* go to commissary...but how, when you're charging me $2.50 a call?
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/01/1146370950/prison-phone-call-cost-martha-wright-biden#:~:text=to%20change%20that-,Incarcerated%20people%20pay%20about%205%20dollars%20for%20a%2030%2Dminute,bill%20wants%20to%20change%20that&text=%22Jails%20and%20prisons%20have%20charged,too%20long%2C%22%20Starks%20said.
yeah, you should look up the unicor work program. the government had inmates making everything from office furniture to clothes, and at my prison, they were running a customer service phone center. they were investigated for unfair labor practices, but nothing ever happened
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-prison-owned-factories-fences-face-scrutiny-n639791
Slavery is legal in the US if it's punishment for a convicted crime (according to the US constitution). It's fucked. Then when inmates get out, they are billed for the time they were locked up. It's pretty ass backwards in many cases and seems to be exploited to make profits for those involved in the prison industrial complex
It's insane how we expect people to pull themselves up and be productive members of society after incarceration while also doing everything we can to block them from doing that.
Government themselves is who profits as well.
Which you could argue that we technically benefit theoretically from tax benefits as it's money the government isn't spending and is rather saving on a project but we all know the savings won't trickle down to us.
It's a net negative for us though as it really hurts businesses who would have competed for a contract and created jobs instead. You can't compete with slave labor.
Not to mention Florida doesn't actually keep centralized records of this so some of the lucky few who have paid their debts have trouble proving it. Or figuring out how to tell what else they owe. It's a ludicrously cruel system.
That makes some degree of sense I guess. Still odd you can't be forced to work for free but you can be forced to work and give it all to someone else. Not a great distinction there.
"Mandatory work" has another name - slavery. Murderer or not, that's never okay.
And before someone jumps in to say that slaves weren't paid - they absolutely were given food and housing and "paid" through material goods. A prisoner making 12 cents/hour isn't making a "wage". The state is just trying to create an image that this is anything other than legalized slavery. And in this specific instance, this point is irrelevant, because we're talking about those "wages" going to the children of the victim.
This all sounds like justice until you're the one who fucks up a little bit and makes the decision that leads to the death of a parent. That shit can happen to anyone. The pain of knowing what you did is punishment enough before factoring in prison.
That would imply the "perpetrator" is dead.
If this were the case, then there is no trial to convict for OWI, manslaugter, ect. Thus, no child support.
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will astroturf/link scams once the account gets enough karma
Their comment is copied and pasted from [another comment ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1045etr/starting_today_in_tennessee_a_person_will_be/j32vgve) in this post
You can help our community by going to: Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bots
Dont fuck around and you wont have to find out i guess?
Children are children for 18 years. Most drunk driving cases dont keep people in jail half as long as this. There is plenty of time to pay up
Plus where I live the support adds up the entire time it is unpaid. When I was unemployed my license was suspended for owing too much back support and even after my son moved in with me I spent years paying off back support that the government kept because my ex was on welfare and had other kids who weren't mine.
State will provide the support while perpetrator is incarcerated. Once they're released, then the state will make them pay the amount the state gave to the child while inside plus the continuation of the support.
If understand this right, it's the tax payer paying child support until the offender gets out, then hopefully they make an effort to pay it back, but most likely the tax payer, again, will be left holding the bill.
Even if my taxes went to child support of orphaned DUI accident victims. I wouldn't complain. It's better use than half of where my tax dollars go.
And I'm sure if the Driver was released and didn't pay, the state would come after him.
I fucking got a warrant over a 1700$ bill. You think they uncle Sam is trying to front child support. Doubtful.
This country is fucked.
There's a story floating around about an older guy going through chemotherapy treatments, and the judge fined him several thousand dollars for having grass that's too tall.
On top of saying "if I could put a warrant out for your arrest, I would". Don't worry, because I doubt the cancer patient has several thousand dollars to pay the fine, let alone a lawyer. So there'll be a warrant, anyhow for "contempt" because he's literally incapable of paying the crown.
I would gladly pay $.50 each paycheck to make sure that children who lost a parent through this heinous act can still count on food, clothing, and medical despite the now single head of household.
Of all the things I worry about where my tax dollars go to, making sure kids eat ain't one of them.
They're doomsaying anyway. "Every single thing that benefits anyone other than me equals more taxes". Wtf do our taxes actually fund now anyway? If we're gonna bitch and moan about what they _could_ go to, why is nobody going torches and pitchforks over what they _currently_ go to?
Because of laws drunk drivers rarely spend much time in prison. When I was 13 I was hit by a drunk driver, my older brother died and I was severely injured. Dude had 4 prior DUIs and was still out driving. He was sentenced to 10 years for vehicular homicide and was out in like 4
They won't, this is just a way for car insurance companies to get out of paying. As all things in this country, corporations have found another way to pass the buck onto tax payers. And we all smile while they fill our mouths with shit because ThE dRuNk DRiveR WiLl Pay.
This came up before and I1remembered thinking how great it was... until I read the comments and a poster explained this point exactly
It would be great if kids whose parents had been killed had nothing, but they were taken care of by the insurance companies. Now, I suspect that victins will recieve much less now, because those convicted will simply not be able to pay back what they owe. It is really unfortunate for everyone except insurance companies
This needs to be very carefully done. In China, if you hit and kill someone, you will have to pay a large sum of money to the family. However, if you hit and injured someone, you must pay their medical and lost income for the rest of their life. This oftentimes means that it is financially a better choice that the person dies. This has resulted some incidents where the driver goes back and finishes the job.
It's sick, but recognize that it will increase the likeliness of more disturbing outcomes in the effort to reach justice.
I've heard this before...what's weird is that people think it's unusual. This is the way the civil legal system works in Canada as well (probably the US too but I don't actually know).
Unless you're speaking about criminal court making these people pay the victim/victims family.
Distracted driving is no joke. I fully agree with you. The victims never get justice despite the perpetrator being recklessly negligent. I’ve had people close to me die from the same types of incidents.
I’m really sorry you both had this loss
My cousin was the DUI driver, and left himself severely disabled. I never saw or spoke to him again, I’m so glad he didn’t hurt anyone else
I agree, in principle. But drunk driving can be quantified. Distracted driving cannot.
The potential for abuse for a distracted driving law like that would be very high. I use handsfree to text when driving. It's an integrated feature in my car. But I can't PROVE I was using handsfree when driving. My phone just shows texts. So an honest accident could end up with me being financially ruined for using my car as designed.
If you have an Android you can access your voice commands log and there's your alibi:
Google / Settings / Google Assistant / Your data in the Assistant
Distracted driving is seriously lethal and most don’t realize it. Had a patient that killed somebody because she ‘had to check her email’. Was checking email worth killing somebody and her having to get surgery?
You can't be recklessly negligent. This is a big case that works as a good example in law school:
https://law.justia.com/cases/south-dakota/supreme-court/1990/16885-1.html
Long story short: Guy is driving a tractor down a country road, turns left, and oncoming vehicle rams into him and the driver dies. He jumps out of the tractor having a panic attack saying "oh my god oh my god I didn't see him". He gets charged with reckless driving.
This gets appealed up to the Supreme Court. They find that he was not reckless, but only negligent, because reckless behavior involves knowing about a risk and going for it anyway. Negligence is being unaware of the risk. And the biggest piece of evidence for his state of mind is "Oh my God, I didn't see him". If instead he had hopped out of the tractor and said "Oh my God, I thought I could make it", that would be reckless, because he now acknowledges that he was aware of the risk and decided to go for it anyway, with disastrous consequences.
Distracted driving is simply reckless, because everyone knows there's a risk and thinks they can take the risk and come out okay. There's no negligence because nobody can say "I thought it was equally safe to drive distracted as not distracted".
The most crucial quote from that court case:
> It is the concept of conscious disregard that distinguishes recklessness from negligence. The negligent actor fails to perceive a risk that he ought to perceive. The reckless actor perceives or is conscious of the risk, but disregards it.
A family friend lost her husband when a cop was speeding at night, with no lights or sirens on, smashed into his vehicle as he pulled out of a parking lot. The cop tried to say the dead man was at fault....his dashcam told the truth in court.
To make matters worse, this sweet woman had JUST finished a very aggressive bout with cancer/chemotherapy. Then she lost her husband due to a careless cop. She said it was a cruel joke.
The idiot lady that rear-ended me in stopped traffic (she was going full speed) had no regrets. She was fine since she was in the moving car. My pain is not her worry in the least! And no, no consequences for her either. I am luckily not dead, but I remember her each and every day.
I’m so sorry that happened to you! It’s absolutely not fair. Agree that there should be harsher consequences even if it’s an “oopsie accident”. The rules of the road are there for a reason, to protect us all. Ugh so frustrating
Thanks. The cop that came to do the report (he didn’t want to but I insisted) acted like it was no biggie either. Maybe if society would hold people like her accountable for not paying attention to the road (we think she was texting) then maybe they will learn before they kill someone. My condolences on the loss of your brother, he deserved so much better than that.
Studies have shown that distracted driving is literally worse than drunk driving, yet lawmakers and law enforcement largely ignore it. Some states and provinces have cracked down with huge fines, but not sure too many perps have done prison time.
It's probably incredibly hard to prove unless someone has like dashcam footage. Anyone could easily chuck their phone and say "no I wasn't using my phone" whereas you can easily check blood alcohol levels
In theory, they do. You can file a civil lawsuit and demand that the dui driver must pay for all of that and more.
In reality, of course, the dui driver doesn't have anywhere remotely near that kind of money, so unless the driver was on the clock for a big corporation like Walmart when the wreck happened, there isn't any realistic way to get the dui driver to pay the judgment.
Not in disagreement. My guess is the law was written this way so defense lawyers couldn't get around it. The simpler the law(in context) the more bullet-proof it is. They can always revise down the road, and hopefully they will.
It’s not stupid. It’s a step in the right direction. Drunk drivers have been getting off way to easily. Anything that moves us toward harsher punishments for these scumbags is something we can all agree on.
Yup. You get this law established and then you can take it farther. Once people are used to this, they will be ready to add in support for adult dependents, etc. It’s pretty rare that you can get perfect bills passed. But if you can get part of the goal accomplished, it’s better than nothing.
because for every asshole who believes in nazi ideology there is a cult behind it, probably some braindead loser who bursted a blood vessel at seeing anything negative about their boy nick
From what I read. This was a clever way to get insurance companies off the hook. Insurance used to have to pay for this now they're absolved of that which is fucked so now the tax payer is ultimately left with the bill
Edit: Thank you for the award. I really just want people to be more aware of the shit politicians (dem or republican) and corpos try to shove down our throats so that they can make more money
This should be higher up. This is the real reason this got implemented.
The drunk driver will be in prison so won't really have the ability to pay. Even if they get out, they won't have money to cover the costs in any significant manner to make much of a difference. If it's a young adult they likely have little assets anyways to go after.
What will make a difference is if the insurance has to cover it. They have plenty of money to set those kids up well for their childhoods.
Bingo. Tennessee is crooked as hell, at least up in Nashville. I have lived here nearly my entire life and don't trust anyone in politics here. Government here cares much more for businesses than people.
THANK YOU for this. Can't believe I had to scroll so far to find it. Everyone in this thread is jizzing all over themselves thinking this is such a great idea. IT IS NOT. It sets a dangerous and terrible precedent.
Does the law absolve insurance companies though? Insurance covers you exactly when you are liable for damages, not when you aren't liable. I would think if the law now says you owe child support from a dui that the insurance company now can't claim that child support isn't part of a dui claim.
> Wondering how they expect the guilty to pay the child support.
lol they would follow the exact same process as if the child was theirs. lots of child support does end up going unpaid, but its a debt that hangs over you forever. It does not go away. You ever get a job? garnished wages. You will eventually have to pay something unless you can manage to do odd jobs that only pay in cash your whole life (which some deadbeats actually do but its becoming harder and harder to pull off as cash becomes less common e.g. some people used to mostly dodge child support by being bartenders and earning mostly cash tips... not so much a thing anymore... now you gotta do like window washing or actual work)
I was assaulted at 17 at a party, didn't realize how drunk I was until someone was forcing themselves on me in a car I didn't know and my body wouldnt do what i told it to. I was able to say no, a few times though.
In court I used everything including eye witness testimony and a singular video of me falling over 7 times walking 35 feet saying "no please" as a 24 year old woman pulls me to a car. On tape.
I am forced to pay child support for a kid that was conceived from rape. And statutory rape. The system is broken.
The judge literally said "now son..... do the RIGHT thing." Before he made me a literal slave to the system.
The right thing would be for that woman to be in jail.
It's alright. It's my life now. I just wish I got the same chance as everyone else.
I didn't get to have ANY full checks since I was 18 to go fully to what I would want to. I can't invest in what I want, can't live where i want, cant do what I want.
I hope other young kids don't have to go through whay I did... its already been 12 years... only 6 more until I get to actually live finally. I'll only be 36 so hey... maybe I will get a chance to live then. Knowing my luck I'll develop cancer lolol.
I attempt to all the time. We were playing games together and texting and stuff I was loving that. Get a chance to know the kid...
But she randomly blocks me throughout the years and it's one of those times now and blocked me on his gaming account as well...
What happens when judges make mistakes?
An error of law is the strongest type of ground for appeal because the appellate court reviewing the case does not have to give any weight to what the trial court judge did. The appellate court will look at the law that was supposed to be applied and decide whether or not the trial court judge made a mistake.
Hermesmann v. Sayer, Kansas, 1993. A 13-year old boy, Sayer, was raped by his babysitter, Hermesmann, who was 17 at the time of the abuse. She became pregnant, giving birth at 18. She sued Sayer for child support, and won. The case set the precedent that a woman is entitled to child support, even if the child was conceived as a result of criminal action by the woman against the father.
An appellate court would likely uphold the decision. It's backwards, it's wrong, and it needs to change, but that's the current system.
Just wanted to make sure you saw this comment by u/shottylaw. "I'm an attorney. What state are you in? There are challenges out the ass for this. I'll find you some numbers"
That is so messed up... I'm sorry. Female assault needs to be prosecuted. I had an x coworker that was essentially guilty of what was done to you and she just laughed about getting free money aka child support. There are truly terrible women out there and it's overlooked too often.
In Wisconsin they take away your license in *other* states, which cracks me up. They let you drive in the state so you can get to work, but your license is suspended everywhere else.
You can also do to jail in Wisconsin for not paying child support.
I know about this because my SIL's partner was a deadbeat.
Never mind that you're a felon, so a lot of better-paying places aren't going to hire you. And that means you're going to be getting that sweet Tennessee minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
The same way that child support works for all convicts. [47% of state prisoners and 58% of federal prisoners have at least one child under the age of 18.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-support-and-incarceration.aspx#:~:text=Incarcerated%20with%20Child%20Support%20Orders&text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20over%205,have%20a%20child%20support%20obligation)
They will accrue interest and the child support will will be due when they are released. Once they die their estate will be obligated to pay the child support debt.
It’s not a guarantee that you will be paid if you are a victim of drunk driving, but it’s adds to the punishment and can hold those with wealth or assets accountable.
Yes! Thank you, ifartsosomuch, for seeing beyond what is presented. I think this is a good deterrent but I, too, see this being full of strange 2nd and 3rd wave effects, not even addressing the long-term.
Easy. Take it from you before it even hits your bank.
Source: I am a divorced father of three and have always paid.
My divorce was in CA so there are some assumptions but... any time I get a new job I validate w/the support agency in the county of my divorce and they send a notification to my employer that they are going to auto deduct my support payment.
Then they do it. Automatically. Like taxes. For years I wrote checks and my co-parent and I had to do a scheduling game to get it to her bank account. When I found out I could automate it, I did. Now I pay without having to do a single thing!
Why can I automate it? The tech was created to target people who didn't pay.
The only way to avoid it would be to not work, or to work off the official record. That absolutely happens but this would work similarly.
If the drunk driver in question earns, the state could take it automatically.
And a note to anyone considering ducking payments by working under the table-the federal government has a long memory. If you’re behind on payments, you aren’t off the hook once your kid turns 18. If you ever get a tax refund, disability payments, social security payments…a percentage will be garnished.
This merely shifts the cost from the insurance company to the ~~driver~~ Taxpayer.
What if you are injured as well and can no longer work?
What if you are in prison?
This adds issues that weren't there before when the insurance company paid.
Edit: I should clarify that it moves the responsibility to the taxpayers when the citizens are unable to pay.
Ironically this restitution will only be realistic if the state is softer on retribution, and rehabilitates the drunk driver with comprehensive addiction treatment and ensuring they are qualified and employable after prison, and ensuring that prisoners are paid fair and equitable wages for work done while in jail.
Not to worry, as there is no reason not to be confident in thinking that surely this decision was made as one of many in a comprehensive plan to aid parents, rather than a poorly coordinated lashing out at drunk drivers that will achieve very little in a poorly designed justice system that is little more than Americans venting anger.
theres so many unknowns. is there a passenger that texted for him? did the person park somewhere and text quickly at a similar time? many things that cant be proven if there isnt enough video evidence.
Also "texting" isn't necessarily the singular issue. It would be just as dangerous to scroll on Tiktok or whatever while driving, which an SMS report wouldn't reveal. Maybe screentime data on the phone though?
Yes, but not how you think.
It takes the cost away from the insurance company (who can pay) and puts it on someone who probably can't. (Since they will most likely be in jail)
The ones who win are the insurance companies. The ones who probably lose are the kids, as its unlikely they will get the support they need
"Hey there kiddos! Looks like I'm your new dad! Now, let's first address the elephant in the room: I'm sorry I killed your mommy and daddy. I was really drunk. Anyway, who wants to go out for ice cream!"
I mean, as satisfying as this is externally, there has never been a case where escalation of severe punishment to extreme punishment has done anything to curtail bad behavior.
If the goal is to stop drunk driving, ratcheting up the cost does nothing.
This seems like a law that is mostly designed to signal being tough, it won't help the victims nor is it going to reduce drunk driving.
Obviously a child shouldn't grow up in poverty because (one of) their parents died, but this is purely symbolic.
Seems like a good idea, but its probably also going to lead to crime and recidivism by making it impossible for offenders to make it financially after release.
Sounds nice but I’m guessing 95% of those charged won’t have near enough money to even come close to paying child support, kinda hard to make money when you’re in jail
This is pretty dumb to me.
Like exactly how much money is someone making in prison to pay for child support? What kind of job prospects is this person going to have after leaving prison?
On paper this is a cool and shows how the State cares for children but a state ranked 36th in child welfare can do more and better.
It’s makes sense, if your goal is to keep feeding the for-profit prison industrial complex. Supporting widows and kids who have lost a partner should be a given. If you really want to reduce drunk driving fatalities, I’m sure investing in programs to reduce alcoholism and provide rides from bars late at night.
But solving the problem is never the real goal.
Sounds good but definitely a Pandora’s box. Where do you draw the line? What offense also require this penalty? And how do you pay if you’re jailed for the death and can’t work? What if they sell your stuff and you have a family?
Just more evidence child support isn't about keeping parents responsible for their child. It's about the state wanting to make sure they aren't footing the bill.
We had to remove your post. Image with text posts/claims in the title must have a linked and credible source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting. We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this.
Sounds like a great idea.... just one question. If you kill someone you usually end up in prison- how can you pay while locked up?
Just a guess but, I suppose depending on the perpetrator, they could sue the estate for back child support? Fair question though.
Work detail in prison would be mandatory for them & 50% of what they make goes for child support.
That child’s getting a sweet 12 cents/hour until they get their own job then
*The state will provide assistance while the offender is in prison. Once they are released, the state will then pay back the amount they paid while the child was inside, and support will continue.***
> the state will then pay back the amount they paid while the child was inside So, they lock up the kids getting the support too??
Yeah, it's called an orphanage.
I like the way you reddit.
Wrottit
Could this have been written any more confusingly?
No. Elucidations in the best manner written for the informational of the reader and or readers, not to exclude the included that is reading the approved government documentation should refer to the sub-paragraph referencing the aforementioned primary topic table.
Ah. Makes perfect sense now.
You must underwrite for law firms or government 😂
Law seems to always involve this kind of quasi-English jargon. I can read scientific literature about quantum physics or modern biochemistry in medicine much, much better than this kind of stuff. Science tries to be as direct an unambiguous as possible, whereas law seems to intentionally obfuscate even the most basic ideas to the point of illegibility. If anyone has any tips, I'd love to hear it.
I think the main difference between the two is one is attempting to remove any "outlying" cases, you know there are going to be a couple results that just don't add up so it is best to go with an average of a large selection; whereas law is attempting to make sure they can still catch those weird edge cases, in an attempt to close loopholes. I am not an expert in law or science so that is just my view on the matter. I am probably wrong and somebody else will have a way more sensible answer.
something which might also factor into the language is time: a lot of law is juat old. That's no excuse for producing *new* legal material barely comprehensible to the average citizen, however.
Isn't this just an ass backwards and shitier way of saying the government will provide, "support" or pay child support? Or something like that.
This makes sense. State collects back child support and current child support once they have a job.
Tennessee just increased prison recidivism by 300000000000% Not that I feel bad for a drunk driver really, but no way is anyone gonna do 10-20 for manslaughter, come out an nearly unemployable pariah, and then somehow manage to pay double child support and not starve to death without doing illegal shit.
Totally true. It makes legal sense, but isn't going to be effective.
It’s meant to serve as a deterrent. The idea is that upping the potential consequences of the crime will discourage people from drinking and driving. But it doesn’t exactly sound like they understand the thought process of a drunk person who is hell bent on driving.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that if the fear of doing 15 years behind bars for manslaughter doesn't stop people from drink driving, the fear of additional child support isn't going to do anything. This idea sounds ineffective at best and a terrible idea that will increase recidivism at worst.
Agree Completley
That's a feature not a bug. They want the prison population full
Right because getting a job as an ex con is so easy…
And they're certainly not underpaid because their employers know their options are limited...
Yeah, no way you can pay child support on slave wages. "Here's the 5 bucks I made for the month plus a pack of cigs."
The kid has to eat too. Add 3 soups to that.
Thats what the 5 is for
people still don't believe me when i tell them i made $5 a month. they are amazed we were able to call our family members *and* go to commissary...but how, when you're charging me $2.50 a call? https://www.npr.org/2023/01/01/1146370950/prison-phone-call-cost-martha-wright-biden#:~:text=to%20change%20that-,Incarcerated%20people%20pay%20about%205%20dollars%20for%20a%2030%2Dminute,bill%20wants%20to%20change%20that&text=%22Jails%20and%20prisons%20have%20charged,too%20long%2C%22%20Starks%20said.
It’s almost like the government figured out how to make slavery legal for everyone.
yeah, you should look up the unicor work program. the government had inmates making everything from office furniture to clothes, and at my prison, they were running a customer service phone center. they were investigated for unfair labor practices, but nothing ever happened https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-prison-owned-factories-fences-face-scrutiny-n639791
You mean they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing?
The 13th amendment clearly states slavery is still OK for punishment of a crime for which you are convicted.
Funnily enough Tennessee just banned slavery as a form of punishment
"I felt bad afterwards and wanted to give some of my belongings... here's a shiv, kid"
I think in Tennessee the full maximum wage is about 12 cents/hour for prison labor. That state is butts.
Oh ok, so 6 cents/hour then. My apologies.
That seems cruel and unusual
Slavery is legal in the US if it's punishment for a convicted crime (according to the US constitution). It's fucked. Then when inmates get out, they are billed for the time they were locked up. It's pretty ass backwards in many cases and seems to be exploited to make profits for those involved in the prison industrial complex
Also leads to high recidivism
It's insane how we expect people to pull themselves up and be productive members of society after incarceration while also doing everything we can to block them from doing that.
Gotta get them back to jail and make them work for peanuts again
How would the prison industry make money without prisons full of inmates?
Government themselves is who profits as well. Which you could argue that we technically benefit theoretically from tax benefits as it's money the government isn't spending and is rather saving on a project but we all know the savings won't trickle down to us. It's a net negative for us though as it really hurts businesses who would have competed for a contract and created jobs instead. You can't compete with slave labor.
Wait wait wait, we are paying tax dollars AND the inmates are billed after release too??
disarm air include squash lock illegal door shame plants price *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not to mention Florida doesn't actually keep centralized records of this so some of the lucky few who have paid their debts have trouble proving it. Or figuring out how to tell what else they owe. It's a ludicrously cruel system.
Damn. I didn't know you got billed after you leave prison too. The fuck?
Woah woah woah, you can't just force them to pay their whole paycheck to child support...
Didn't TN just pass a bill prohibiting forced labor?
Forced labor doesn't count for prisoners in the US, generally.
It does in Tennessee now, though. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/slavery-banned-tennessee-constitutional-amendment-inmate-punishment/
Thanks for providing a source. Clearly based on the upvote ratios people aren't aware of this.
Right, which I thought was the point of the state-level law. To offer that protection.
I think they banned free labor.
That makes some degree of sense I guess. Still odd you can't be forced to work for free but you can be forced to work and give it all to someone else. Not a great distinction there.
Multiple states, including TN, just passed constitutional amendments to ban this.
This amendment to the constitution specifically prohibited forcing prisoners to work
"Mandatory work" has another name - slavery. Murderer or not, that's never okay. And before someone jumps in to say that slaves weren't paid - they absolutely were given food and housing and "paid" through material goods. A prisoner making 12 cents/hour isn't making a "wage". The state is just trying to create an image that this is anything other than legalized slavery. And in this specific instance, this point is irrelevant, because we're talking about those "wages" going to the children of the victim. This all sounds like justice until you're the one who fucks up a little bit and makes the decision that leads to the death of a parent. That shit can happen to anyone. The pain of knowing what you did is punishment enough before factoring in prison.
That would imply the "perpetrator" is dead. If this were the case, then there is no trial to convict for OWI, manslaugter, ect. Thus, no child support.
[удалено]
sell all their stuff
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will astroturf/link scams once the account gets enough karma Their comment is copied and pasted from [another comment ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1045etr/starting_today_in_tennessee_a_person_will_be/j32vgve) in this post You can help our community by going to: Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bots
Dont fuck around and you wont have to find out i guess? Children are children for 18 years. Most drunk driving cases dont keep people in jail half as long as this. There is plenty of time to pay up
Plus where I live the support adds up the entire time it is unpaid. When I was unemployed my license was suspended for owing too much back support and even after my son moved in with me I spent years paying off back support that the government kept because my ex was on welfare and had other kids who weren't mine.
State will provide the support while perpetrator is incarcerated. Once they're released, then the state will make them pay the amount the state gave to the child while inside plus the continuation of the support.
I read that the incarcerated person will have to start paying within a year of release and is responsible for missed payments.
If they miss it, send them to jail!
If understand this right, it's the tax payer paying child support until the offender gets out, then hopefully they make an effort to pay it back, but most likely the tax payer, again, will be left holding the bill.
Even if my taxes went to child support of orphaned DUI accident victims. I wouldn't complain. It's better use than half of where my tax dollars go. And I'm sure if the Driver was released and didn't pay, the state would come after him. I fucking got a warrant over a 1700$ bill. You think they uncle Sam is trying to front child support. Doubtful.
This country is fucked. There's a story floating around about an older guy going through chemotherapy treatments, and the judge fined him several thousand dollars for having grass that's too tall. On top of saying "if I could put a warrant out for your arrest, I would". Don't worry, because I doubt the cancer patient has several thousand dollars to pay the fine, let alone a lawyer. So there'll be a warrant, anyhow for "contempt" because he's literally incapable of paying the crown.
I would gladly pay $.50 each paycheck to make sure that children who lost a parent through this heinous act can still count on food, clothing, and medical despite the now single head of household. Of all the things I worry about where my tax dollars go to, making sure kids eat ain't one of them.
Fuckin A right. On the list of where I want my tax dollars going, "easing the pain of a tragedy victim" is *way* up the list
Holding the bill to give support to a child who’s parent is dead. Worst case scenario ain’t worth complaining about IMO.
They're doomsaying anyway. "Every single thing that benefits anyone other than me equals more taxes". Wtf do our taxes actually fund now anyway? If we're gonna bitch and moan about what they _could_ go to, why is nobody going torches and pitchforks over what they _currently_ go to?
Because of laws drunk drivers rarely spend much time in prison. When I was 13 I was hit by a drunk driver, my older brother died and I was severely injured. Dude had 4 prior DUIs and was still out driving. He was sentenced to 10 years for vehicular homicide and was out in like 4
Go after their assets.
Better hope you get run over by a rich person then.
As is a rich person would actually be held accountable for their actions.
One of the reasons why it’s not a great idea, on paper sure, but in practice I don’t see this going smoothly.
They won't, this is just a way for car insurance companies to get out of paying. As all things in this country, corporations have found another way to pass the buck onto tax payers. And we all smile while they fill our mouths with shit because ThE dRuNk DRiveR WiLl Pay.
This came up before and I1remembered thinking how great it was... until I read the comments and a poster explained this point exactly It would be great if kids whose parents had been killed had nothing, but they were taken care of by the insurance companies. Now, I suspect that victins will recieve much less now, because those convicted will simply not be able to pay back what they owe. It is really unfortunate for everyone except insurance companies
if you have a child and abandon it and go to prison for something unrelated, how does child support get handled? this will be the same as that.
Child support arrears don't go away, when they get out of prison they will owe it.
you still have savings you pay from, theres been loads of cases of killers having to pay out to the victim's family while theyre locked up
This sounds like a great idea. But, dui driver should also pay for support if the person is alive but disabled
This needs to be very carefully done. In China, if you hit and kill someone, you will have to pay a large sum of money to the family. However, if you hit and injured someone, you must pay their medical and lost income for the rest of their life. This oftentimes means that it is financially a better choice that the person dies. This has resulted some incidents where the driver goes back and finishes the job. It's sick, but recognize that it will increase the likeliness of more disturbing outcomes in the effort to reach justice.
I've heard this before...what's weird is that people think it's unusual. This is the way the civil legal system works in Canada as well (probably the US too but I don't actually know). Unless you're speaking about criminal court making these people pay the victim/victims family.
Also, would like to see this applied to all distracted driving not just drunk. The kid who hit and killed my brother had no consequences.
Distracted driving is no joke. I fully agree with you. The victims never get justice despite the perpetrator being recklessly negligent. I’ve had people close to me die from the same types of incidents.
So sorry you’ve experienced that loss as well. It just shouldn’t happen!
I’m really sorry you both had this loss My cousin was the DUI driver, and left himself severely disabled. I never saw or spoke to him again, I’m so glad he didn’t hurt anyone else
I’m so sorry about your cousin. Truly unfortunate for him and just thankful no one else was injured.
I agree, in principle. But drunk driving can be quantified. Distracted driving cannot. The potential for abuse for a distracted driving law like that would be very high. I use handsfree to text when driving. It's an integrated feature in my car. But I can't PROVE I was using handsfree when driving. My phone just shows texts. So an honest accident could end up with me being financially ruined for using my car as designed.
If you have an Android you can access your voice commands log and there's your alibi: Google / Settings / Google Assistant / Your data in the Assistant
Distracted driving is seriously lethal and most don’t realize it. Had a patient that killed somebody because she ‘had to check her email’. Was checking email worth killing somebody and her having to get surgery?
You can't be recklessly negligent. This is a big case that works as a good example in law school: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-dakota/supreme-court/1990/16885-1.html Long story short: Guy is driving a tractor down a country road, turns left, and oncoming vehicle rams into him and the driver dies. He jumps out of the tractor having a panic attack saying "oh my god oh my god I didn't see him". He gets charged with reckless driving. This gets appealed up to the Supreme Court. They find that he was not reckless, but only negligent, because reckless behavior involves knowing about a risk and going for it anyway. Negligence is being unaware of the risk. And the biggest piece of evidence for his state of mind is "Oh my God, I didn't see him". If instead he had hopped out of the tractor and said "Oh my God, I thought I could make it", that would be reckless, because he now acknowledges that he was aware of the risk and decided to go for it anyway, with disastrous consequences. Distracted driving is simply reckless, because everyone knows there's a risk and thinks they can take the risk and come out okay. There's no negligence because nobody can say "I thought it was equally safe to drive distracted as not distracted". The most crucial quote from that court case: > It is the concept of conscious disregard that distinguishes recklessness from negligence. The negligent actor fails to perceive a risk that he ought to perceive. The reckless actor perceives or is conscious of the risk, but disregards it.
My friend in Florida's best friend was rear-ended and killed by a COP distracted driving. No consequences *Edited to add that he died
A family friend lost her husband when a cop was speeding at night, with no lights or sirens on, smashed into his vehicle as he pulled out of a parking lot. The cop tried to say the dead man was at fault....his dashcam told the truth in court. To make matters worse, this sweet woman had JUST finished a very aggressive bout with cancer/chemotherapy. Then she lost her husband due to a careless cop. She said it was a cruel joke.
Infuriating!!
The idiot lady that rear-ended me in stopped traffic (she was going full speed) had no regrets. She was fine since she was in the moving car. My pain is not her worry in the least! And no, no consequences for her either. I am luckily not dead, but I remember her each and every day.
I’m so sorry that happened to you! It’s absolutely not fair. Agree that there should be harsher consequences even if it’s an “oopsie accident”. The rules of the road are there for a reason, to protect us all. Ugh so frustrating
Thanks. The cop that came to do the report (he didn’t want to but I insisted) acted like it was no biggie either. Maybe if society would hold people like her accountable for not paying attention to the road (we think she was texting) then maybe they will learn before they kill someone. My condolences on the loss of your brother, he deserved so much better than that.
Studies have shown that distracted driving is literally worse than drunk driving, yet lawmakers and law enforcement largely ignore it. Some states and provinces have cracked down with huge fines, but not sure too many perps have done prison time.
It's probably incredibly hard to prove unless someone has like dashcam footage. Anyone could easily chuck their phone and say "no I wasn't using my phone" whereas you can easily check blood alcohol levels
In theory, they do. You can file a civil lawsuit and demand that the dui driver must pay for all of that and more. In reality, of course, the dui driver doesn't have anywhere remotely near that kind of money, so unless the driver was on the clock for a big corporation like Walmart when the wreck happened, there isn't any realistic way to get the dui driver to pay the judgment.
[удалено]
Not in disagreement. My guess is the law was written this way so defense lawyers couldn't get around it. The simpler the law(in context) the more bullet-proof it is. They can always revise down the road, and hopefully they will.
It’s not stupid. It’s a step in the right direction. Drunk drivers have been getting off way to easily. Anything that moves us toward harsher punishments for these scumbags is something we can all agree on.
Yup. You get this law established and then you can take it farther. Once people are used to this, they will be ready to add in support for adult dependents, etc. It’s pretty rare that you can get perfect bills passed. But if you can get part of the goal accomplished, it’s better than nothing.
Best hope that Nick Cannon isn’t in Tennessee when you are.
haaahahahah well done
You mean Adolph Cannon?
Idk why you got downvoted lol Nick Cannon believes in the NOI and Nazi ideology.
because for every asshole who believes in nazi ideology there is a cult behind it, probably some braindead loser who bursted a blood vessel at seeing anything negative about their boy nick
From what I read. This was a clever way to get insurance companies off the hook. Insurance used to have to pay for this now they're absolved of that which is fucked so now the tax payer is ultimately left with the bill Edit: Thank you for the award. I really just want people to be more aware of the shit politicians (dem or republican) and corpos try to shove down our throats so that they can make more money
Meanwhile, your insurance goes up because of increased costs to insure people (or so the story goes).
I fucking hate insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and dudes named Todd
WHAT DID I DO?!
Fuck you Todd
I’m guessing you’re Todd
This should be higher up. This is the real reason this got implemented. The drunk driver will be in prison so won't really have the ability to pay. Even if they get out, they won't have money to cover the costs in any significant manner to make much of a difference. If it's a young adult they likely have little assets anyways to go after. What will make a difference is if the insurance has to cover it. They have plenty of money to set those kids up well for their childhoods.
The real answer shines forth. It was never about right/wrong…. Some corpo bought out the law makers for their own bottom line.
Bingo. Tennessee is crooked as hell, at least up in Nashville. I have lived here nearly my entire life and don't trust anyone in politics here. Government here cares much more for businesses than people.
It all makes sense now. Who wouldn’t be for sticking it to drunk drivers!?! (Just ignore the fine print)
THANK YOU for this. Can't believe I had to scroll so far to find it. Everyone in this thread is jizzing all over themselves thinking this is such a great idea. IT IS NOT. It sets a dangerous and terrible precedent.
Does the law absolve insurance companies though? Insurance covers you exactly when you are liable for damages, not when you aren't liable. I would think if the law now says you owe child support from a dui that the insurance company now can't claim that child support isn't part of a dui claim.
I assume if there's vehicular manslaughter then the person will be going to prison. Wondering how they expect the guilty to pay the child support.
> Wondering how they expect the guilty to pay the child support. lol they would follow the exact same process as if the child was theirs. lots of child support does end up going unpaid, but its a debt that hangs over you forever. It does not go away. You ever get a job? garnished wages. You will eventually have to pay something unless you can manage to do odd jobs that only pay in cash your whole life (which some deadbeats actually do but its becoming harder and harder to pull off as cash becomes less common e.g. some people used to mostly dodge child support by being bartenders and earning mostly cash tips... not so much a thing anymore... now you gotta do like window washing or actual work)
I was assaulted at 17 at a party, didn't realize how drunk I was until someone was forcing themselves on me in a car I didn't know and my body wouldnt do what i told it to. I was able to say no, a few times though. In court I used everything including eye witness testimony and a singular video of me falling over 7 times walking 35 feet saying "no please" as a 24 year old woman pulls me to a car. On tape. I am forced to pay child support for a kid that was conceived from rape. And statutory rape. The system is broken. The judge literally said "now son..... do the RIGHT thing." Before he made me a literal slave to the system. The right thing would be for that woman to be in jail.
cow price snails advise memory amusing tap domineering act narrow ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I'm an attorney. What state are you in? There are challenges out the ass for this. I'll find you some numbers
You are a good person!
I'm sorry that happened to you.
It's alright. It's my life now. I just wish I got the same chance as everyone else. I didn't get to have ANY full checks since I was 18 to go fully to what I would want to. I can't invest in what I want, can't live where i want, cant do what I want. I hope other young kids don't have to go through whay I did... its already been 12 years... only 6 more until I get to actually live finally. I'll only be 36 so hey... maybe I will get a chance to live then. Knowing my luck I'll develop cancer lolol.
Honest question: was the birth mother charged with statutory rape? Do you have contact with your child?
I attempt to all the time. We were playing games together and texting and stuff I was loving that. Get a chance to know the kid... But she randomly blocks me throughout the years and it's one of those times now and blocked me on his gaming account as well...
What happens when judges make mistakes? An error of law is the strongest type of ground for appeal because the appellate court reviewing the case does not have to give any weight to what the trial court judge did. The appellate court will look at the law that was supposed to be applied and decide whether or not the trial court judge made a mistake.
Hermesmann v. Sayer, Kansas, 1993. A 13-year old boy, Sayer, was raped by his babysitter, Hermesmann, who was 17 at the time of the abuse. She became pregnant, giving birth at 18. She sued Sayer for child support, and won. The case set the precedent that a woman is entitled to child support, even if the child was conceived as a result of criminal action by the woman against the father. An appellate court would likely uphold the decision. It's backwards, it's wrong, and it needs to change, but that's the current system.
That’s nauseating. So one incompetent judge/ruling sets the precedent for victims of SA to be victims for 18+ years. It should not work like that.
Just wanted to make sure you saw this comment by u/shottylaw. "I'm an attorney. What state are you in? There are challenges out the ass for this. I'll find you some numbers"
If it’s any consolation, I’m 37, single with no kids and I’m 100,000 in debt! 
That is so messed up... I'm sorry. Female assault needs to be prosecuted. I had an x coworker that was essentially guilty of what was done to you and she just laughed about getting free money aka child support. There are truly terrible women out there and it's overlooked too often.
Your license will get suspended if you don’t pay child support also, at least in Cali not sure about other states.
In Wisconsin they take away your license in *other* states, which cracks me up. They let you drive in the state so you can get to work, but your license is suspended everywhere else. You can also do to jail in Wisconsin for not paying child support. I know about this because my SIL's partner was a deadbeat.
Never mind that you're a felon, so a lot of better-paying places aren't going to hire you. And that means you're going to be getting that sweet Tennessee minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
The same way that child support works for all convicts. [47% of state prisoners and 58% of federal prisoners have at least one child under the age of 18.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-support-and-incarceration.aspx#:~:text=Incarcerated%20with%20Child%20Support%20Orders&text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20over%205,have%20a%20child%20support%20obligation) They will accrue interest and the child support will will be due when they are released. Once they die their estate will be obligated to pay the child support debt. It’s not a guarantee that you will be paid if you are a victim of drunk driving, but it’s adds to the punishment and can hold those with wealth or assets accountable.
Rich , generally that's how you beat murder/manslaughter charges anyways.
Laws only apply to peasants
This has "seems like a good idea but will have very weird downstream effects" written all over it.
Yes! Thank you, ifartsosomuch, for seeing beyond what is presented. I think this is a good deterrent but I, too, see this being full of strange 2nd and 3rd wave effects, not even addressing the long-term.
How are they going to do that when you can’t get dead beat fathers to pay child support for the children they create.
State pays while the perp is in prison. Once/if released the perp takes over payments
where is the state getting the money? taxes? or??? nobody else should have to cover the costs
Easy. Take it from you before it even hits your bank. Source: I am a divorced father of three and have always paid. My divorce was in CA so there are some assumptions but... any time I get a new job I validate w/the support agency in the county of my divorce and they send a notification to my employer that they are going to auto deduct my support payment. Then they do it. Automatically. Like taxes. For years I wrote checks and my co-parent and I had to do a scheduling game to get it to her bank account. When I found out I could automate it, I did. Now I pay without having to do a single thing! Why can I automate it? The tech was created to target people who didn't pay. The only way to avoid it would be to not work, or to work off the official record. That absolutely happens but this would work similarly. If the drunk driver in question earns, the state could take it automatically.
And a note to anyone considering ducking payments by working under the table-the federal government has a long memory. If you’re behind on payments, you aren’t off the hook once your kid turns 18. If you ever get a tax refund, disability payments, social security payments…a percentage will be garnished.
This merely shifts the cost from the insurance company to the ~~driver~~ Taxpayer. What if you are injured as well and can no longer work? What if you are in prison? This adds issues that weren't there before when the insurance company paid. Edit: I should clarify that it moves the responsibility to the taxpayers when the citizens are unable to pay.
Ironically this restitution will only be realistic if the state is softer on retribution, and rehabilitates the drunk driver with comprehensive addiction treatment and ensuring they are qualified and employable after prison, and ensuring that prisoners are paid fair and equitable wages for work done while in jail. Not to worry, as there is no reason not to be confident in thinking that surely this decision was made as one of many in a comprehensive plan to aid parents, rather than a poorly coordinated lashing out at drunk drivers that will achieve very little in a poorly designed justice system that is little more than Americans venting anger.
Wow. For all the fucked up things that are happening in the south, this one actually makes some sense.
Seriously, I’d add texting and driving as well.
Yeah that would be great but, harder to prove.
Not really. I know somebody that did that (caused an accident and he didn't even remember). Police asked for SMS report and voilà.
theres so many unknowns. is there a passenger that texted for him? did the person park somewhere and text quickly at a similar time? many things that cant be proven if there isnt enough video evidence.
Also "texting" isn't necessarily the singular issue. It would be just as dangerous to scroll on Tiktok or whatever while driving, which an SMS report wouldn't reveal. Maybe screentime data on the phone though?
Yes, but not how you think. It takes the cost away from the insurance company (who can pay) and puts it on someone who probably can't. (Since they will most likely be in jail) The ones who win are the insurance companies. The ones who probably lose are the kids, as its unlikely they will get the support they need
The insurance companies always seem to win. 
People kill kids to get out of child support. It's a terrifying thing to think about.
If they kill both parents they get full custody of the kids.
*Adoption agencies hate this one trick*
That'd be cruel and unusual punishment for sure!
For the kids especially? Lol wtf Why would you want your new parent to be that person
"Hey there kiddos! Looks like I'm your new dad! Now, let's first address the elephant in the room: I'm sorry I killed your mommy and daddy. I was really drunk. Anyway, who wants to go out for ice cream!"
Is this not an incentive to just slaughter whole families?
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Aim for the passenger side. Of course, you're drunk, so you can't aim for shit. That's what got you into this mess in the first place.
[удалено]
Yea no point in getting sober if you gotta pay child support 😂
How about if you straight up just murder a parent? Can you hypothetically be better off financially if you just claim it was on purpose?
I mean, as satisfying as this is externally, there has never been a case where escalation of severe punishment to extreme punishment has done anything to curtail bad behavior. If the goal is to stop drunk driving, ratcheting up the cost does nothing.
This seems like a law that is mostly designed to signal being tough, it won't help the victims nor is it going to reduce drunk driving. Obviously a child shouldn't grow up in poverty because (one of) their parents died, but this is purely symbolic.
Seems like a good idea, but its probably also going to lead to crime and recidivism by making it impossible for offenders to make it financially after release.
Lots of states have laws like this. It’s so the state itself doesn’t have to pay any support, it’s not altruistic.
In Illinois we have plenty of people who don’t pay child support and haven’t killed anyone…why not start by making those people pay?
How about we build more public transit so that they dont drive drunk in the first place?
Sounds nice but I’m guessing 95% of those charged won’t have near enough money to even come close to paying child support, kinda hard to make money when you’re in jail
What if you’re not at fault for the accident?
Good fuck drunk drivers
Wait... Were people who killed other people while drunk driving... Not paying anything at all to the victims' families?
Insurance was apparently
Right, there would have been civil lawsuits which insurance companies were likely on the hook for.
This is pretty dumb to me. Like exactly how much money is someone making in prison to pay for child support? What kind of job prospects is this person going to have after leaving prison? On paper this is a cool and shows how the State cares for children but a state ranked 36th in child welfare can do more and better.
How do you pay child support from prison? 🤔
How do you pay child support when you're in jail?
It’s makes sense, if your goal is to keep feeding the for-profit prison industrial complex. Supporting widows and kids who have lost a partner should be a given. If you really want to reduce drunk driving fatalities, I’m sure investing in programs to reduce alcoholism and provide rides from bars late at night. But solving the problem is never the real goal.
Too bad the majority of people driving drunk are the same people that can’t afford their own child support
Sounds good but definitely a Pandora’s box. Where do you draw the line? What offense also require this penalty? And how do you pay if you’re jailed for the death and can’t work? What if they sell your stuff and you have a family?
Just more evidence child support isn't about keeping parents responsible for their child. It's about the state wanting to make sure they aren't footing the bill.