Tennessee passes law requiring drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a parent

[Houston911]

I'm looking at it like this, parent drinks and drives, kills another parent. The parent killed will obviously have their family impacted financially, emotionally, etc. so there would need to be compensation for this. But, if the person that caused the accident also had a family, such as a spouse and children, they are without that parent, so they are already financially out, and they will be even further down as wages are garnished for years up to adulthood of the affected child. Sure, we mended the financial cost of the affected family but we are harming the other family with the garnishing, and for what real reason? The person who caused the accident is going to prison and there will be other penalties on top of that. @KingZimbabwe makes the case that the state should handle the financial side of things, this part is understandable, we can get into the stickiness of the state in question being able to afford but lets assume the state can for arguments sake, and in the rare event that the person that causes the accident is able to foot the bill, say they fall in a wealthy bracket, then they should be required to do so as the spouse and children are less likely to be impacted.

So, with the state or wealthy person footing the bill, we compensate for the death of the affected family without harming those tied to the person that caused the accident while also penalizing the drunk driver with prison/probation and other reasonable penalties. I believe that is a measured take in response to situation that will differently be high in emotions.

is this a serious post? fukk their family

fukk is wrong with you?

 

[Reflected]

Tough shyt


Another problem I have with how people assess things. Why on Earth would a prioritise a drunk driver taking care of his family over ensuring a family isn't made to suffer because of his illegal acts.

Putting things in a simple terms. If I beat you to bloody and caused you to lose out on 100,000s in future earnings, would you expect not sue to me because I have mouths to feed?

Smfh.

My general approach when dealing with situations that involve more than one person is simply "what increases overall wellbeing" and from that to this discussion "what solution would produce the least amount of harm", it's a simple utilitarian approach. With that in mind, no one is prioritising the drunk driver, the drunk driver will be punished accordingly under the law, w/e that is, years in prison + probation. We are prioritizing not creating other unnecessary victims in response to the ordeal, in this case the child and spouse that had nothing to do with their father's incident.

So basic arithmetic:
Family A:
1 Father
1 Mother
1 Child

Family B:
1 Father
1 Mother
1 Child

Family B's father kills Family A's father due to drunk driving, leaving Family A with 1 mother and 1 child. Family B's father will go to prison and have his wages garnished to pay for child support until the child in Family A turns 18 and graduates HS. Both Family A and Family B will have to see to the mother going to work as the primary breadwinner in each family is no longer present, obviously one permanently. Both children will clearly suffer the consequences of this incident as a result. Both are equivalent in incomes, say what is considered above the poverty line in the state of TN. Now we can get super deep into the impact of the father being missing permanently from one and missing for a long time from the other on both children but to keep is short lets focus on the finance. Point is from @KingZimbabwe issue, is that this approach is regressive, in the sense that of course it seemingly writes a wrong but it's really just a tax on the poor. Drunk driving is obviously wrong, and in the event that you kill someone, there should be some form of punishment to disincentivize it, some just want punishment, w/e. Personally, I would tackle the root cause as I can imagine drunk driving isn't equal in prevalence across the board in every state or every country, but I digress. With all of the above in mind, it could simply be the case that by making the drunk driver fit the bill that we will be harming 2 more people as opposed to punishing the drunk driver, of course the driver being jail adversely affects the family but we are taking it a step further with the tax, that will have to be paid by the family, legally speaking. We are further limiting the opportunities of a family in a tough position as we statistically reduce the probability of the family and the child of escaping poverty.

So if you remember I said keep it in the parameters of the argument, I mentioned it in the last sentence of the post you quoted. IF the state can foot the bill to compensate the affected family, the utilitarian approach would lead to an account where the number of people justly punished is 1. If we make the driver foot the bill the number of people punished is 3. I'm not seeing how the moral approach under the utilitarian argument shouldn't be followed if we have the ability to do so. And thus under my position, I have increased overall wellbeing, so that is what I'm working with. Less people harmed from the incident. That is completely logical.

But I can work with your hypothetical outside of the parameters set, if the state couldn't foot the bill, and I would be out of wages that would negatively impact my family for the harm you caused me, I would say the just thing would be to write the wrong and makeup for the missing wages. But that wasn't how the argument was presented.

 

[Umoja]

But I can work with your hypothetical outside of the parameters set, if the state couldn't foot the bill, and I would be out of wages that would negatively impact my family for the harm you caused me, I would say the just thing would be to write the wrong and makeup for the missing wages. But that wasn't how the argument was presented.

Right.

So you are for someone having to pay you damages in the event that their illegal act causes you a detriment, even if their family suffers.

When it comes to drink driving, however, you are, what was it? You are a utilitarian thinking of the defendant's family's wellbeing.

You are full of shyt and caping for the scum of society

 

[Reflected]

is this a serious post? fukk their family

fukk is wrong with you?

So it's funny because I watched your live reaction and response as I was typing my last post. I watched you react how I reacted and then you quoted my initial post with no argument just insult. And then a neg to top it all off. I have other posts further elaborating on the position but I doubt you will care. Understand, I'm neutral on the position, I'm not sure how the situation should be handled, I initially said it was a just position but another poster's argument made me consider the consequences that I had not thought out. Insane we can't have simple discussions without everyone jumping to emotions but that's argument for the average person.

I do have a question though, if you wouldn't mind answering just to see if your logic tracks with your initial approach.

With the image above, the trolley is going to run over 5 people, you can pull the lever and divert it to 1 person, would you pull the lever to kill the 1 or allow the trolley to kill the 5?


edit: And consider this, I'm the bad guy here when the person above is saying "fukk the family" aka people that had nothing to do with the incident. lol Logic.

 

[Reflected]

Right.

So you are for someone having to pay you damages in the event that their illegal act causes you a detriment, even if their family suffers.

When it comes to drink driving, however, you are, what was it? You are a utilitarian thinking of the defendant's family's wellbeing.

You are full of shyt and caping for the scum of society

Yeah, I am for paying in that event because it equals out, 2 for 2. But like I said, within the parameters set, we had the option of the state paying for it, in that event 0 would be affected. Not counting the person to be punished for the assault or manslaughter in the drunk driving incident. That's basic arithmetic.

 

[Houston911]

So it's funny because I watched your live reaction and response as I was typing my last post. I watched you react how I reacted and then you quoted my initial post with no argument just insult. And then a neg to top it all off. I have other posts further elaborating on the position but I doubt you will care. Understand, I'm neutral on the position, I'm not sure how the situation should be handled, I initially said it was a just position but another poster's argument made me consider the consequences that I had not thought out. Insane we can't have simple discussions without everyone jumping to emotions but that's argument for the average person.

I do have a question though, if you wouldn't mind answering just to see if your logic tracks with your initial approach.

With the image above, the trolley is going to run over 5 people, you can pull the lever and divert it to 1 person, would you pull the lever to kill the 1 or allow the trolley to kill the 5?


edit: And consider this, I'm the bad guy here when the person above is saying "fukk the family" aka people that had nothing to do with the incident. lol Logic.

fukk you and their family. shouldn’t have been driving drunk

 

[Reflected]

fukk you and their family. shouldn’t have been driving drunk

Logic. And yeah, obviously punish the drunk driver, no one ever said otherwise. But you take it step further, when the state could foot the bill and punish people that had nothing to do with it, aka the family. Stupid as hell.

Edit: And I like how you dodged the question too, brainlet.

 

[Ray D’Angelo Harris]

Officially went into effect yesterday it seems

 

[Ray D’Angelo Harris]

I'm looking at it like this, parent drinks and drives, kills another parent. The parent killed will obviously have their family impacted financially, emotionally, etc. so there would need to be compensation for this. But, if the person that caused the accident also had a family, such as a spouse and children, they are without that parent, so they are already financially out, and they will be even further down as wages are garnished for years up to adulthood of the affected child. Sure, we mended the financial cost of the affected family but we are harming the other family with the garnishing, and for what real reason? The person who caused the accident is going to prison and there will be other penalties on top of that. @KingZimbabwe makes the case that the state should handle the financial side of things, this part is understandable, we can get into the stickiness of the state in question being able to afford but lets assume the state can for arguments sake, and in the rare event that the person that causes the accident is able to foot the bill, say they fall in a wealthy bracket, then they should be required to do so as the spouse and children are less likely to be impacted.

So, with the state or wealthy person footing the bill, we compensate for the death of the affected family without harming those tied to the person that caused the accident while also penalizing the drunk driver with prison/probation and other reasonable penalties. I believe that is a measured take in response to situation that will differently be high in emotions.

You are one stupid mf

 

[Lucky_Lefty]

There's a nice little moat of morality built around this bill (drunk driving is bad, the Driver turned the kids into orphans, etc...) But is it really practical?

Don't you get locked up for killing someone with a vehicle while drunk driving?

This stuff still seems better being handled in civil court imo. I could see this type of law trickling to other areas.

And where does it end because I can guarantee you this isn’t the end. It will extend to texting while driving, etc. Slippery slope bill imo. And how would this go if it’s a Donte Stallworth type situation where the person would’ve been killed regardless if the other person is drunk or not?

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

I'm looking at it like this, parent drinks and drives, kills another parent. The parent killed will obviously have their family impacted financially, emotionally, etc. so there would need to be compensation for this. But, if the person that caused the accident also had a family, such as a spouse and children, they are without that parent, so they are already financially out, and they will be even further down as wages are garnished for years up to adulthood of the affected child. Sure, we mended the financial cost of the affected family but we are harming the other family with the garnishing, and for what real reason? The person who caused the accident is going to prison and there will be other penalties on top of that. @KingZimbabwe makes the case that the state should handle the financial side of things, this part is understandable, we can get into the stickiness of the state in question being able to afford but lets assume the state can for arguments sake, and in the rare event that the person that causes the accident is able to foot the bill, say they fall in a wealthy bracket, then they should be required to do so as the spouse and children are less likely to be impacted.

So, with the state or wealthy person footing the bill, we compensate for the death of the affected family without harming those tied to the person that caused the accident while also penalizing the drunk driver with prison/probation and other reasonable penalties. I believe that is a measured take in response to situation that will differently be high in emotions.

One person did something wrong, and the other person just existed and got killed.

 

[Remote]

I feel confident this is one of those laws that will have several unintended, unforeseen consequences that will make it a terrible, terrible law.

 

[Ricky Fontaine]

I feel confident this is one of those laws that will have several unintended, unforeseen consequences that will make it a terrible, terrible law.

Definitely.

But people can’t see that because their sayin “fukk the drunk driver. Why drive after you drink”

Well yeah it’s fukk the drunk driver. But why do crack heads go outside and act crazy after getting high instead of going inside somewhere and not smoking crack? Because their addicts and theyre not in their right mind duh.

This is going into war on drugs territory and people are falling for the okey doke again.

 

[The_Sheff]

Why does this only apply to drunk driving? Seems like if you gonna go there it needs to be expanded to all sorts of crimes that impact the financial stability of the child.

 

[CopiousX]

Officially went into effect yesterday it seems

Why does this only apply to drunk driving? Seems like if you gonna go there it needs to be expanded to all sorts of crimes that impact the financial stability of the child.

I feel like this will just lead to higher insurance rates for everybody in tennesee. Obviously drunk dude wont be paying anything in prison. This will fall on gieco.