this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
1664 points (99.0% liked)

News

23014 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A new law in Texas requires convicted drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a child’s parent or guardian, according to House Bill 393.

The law, which went into effect Friday, says those convicted of intoxication manslaughter must pay restitution. The offender will be expected to make those payments until the child is 18 or until the child graduates from high school, “whichever is later,” the legislation says.

Intoxication manslaughter is defined by state law as a person operating “a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A little philosophical, but the drunk person who decides to drive is a different person than the sober person who decided to drink in the first place. Punishing the sober person for the decisions made by the drunk version of themselves is maybe misguided, except for as a deterrent that says "don't turn into a drunk person that can make stupid decisions"

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this problem. Just some food for thought

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s just about the least convincing take I’ve ever heard. You can absolutely punish the person who made the decision to impair themselves beyond the ability to make rational decisions. They came from the same decision to get drunk by the sober person. A person who has a propensity to get drunk and drive is a danger to everyone and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you missed my point. My point is that the crime the sober person makes is deciding to become impaired. That's different from saying the sober person made a decision to drive drunk - the drunk person made that decision, not the sober person. There are 2 different people here in this scenario. Whether the law should treat it that way is a separate discussion. It would have some similarities with a "temporary insanity" defense.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I did not miss your point. I thought it was entirely unconvincing. The other person is the same person just with the disadvantage of being fucked up.

Edit. Furthermore, I believe that the drunk self is just an amplified version of the sober self. My theory is that if your drunk self is capable of doing bad, so is your sober self.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi friend, you do you, but it's the same idea as this: https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/peftk6/a_death_row_inmates_dementia_means_he_cant/

You're of course free do disagree, but I've the sense that you haven't really considered the issue.

I also disagree with the oft-repeated sentiment that the drunk self is an amplified version of the sober self. I think the simple reality is that alcohol changes our behaviors and judgments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then I believe you’re an enabler and should probably rethink what you’re willing to tolerate

Do you really think I haven’t considered your idea? It is utterly unconvincing. Dementia and drunkenness are not the same thing, and I’d say if a person can’t remember doing something heinous, that is not a compelling reason either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think dementia and acts committed while drunk have some similarities when it comes to assigning responsibility (and punishment), but yes they're not the same. One is involuntary, and the other is voluntary. The voluntary act to get drunk is what I called out in my first post. But after that initial act, I think the 2 scenarios are more alike than they are different.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Ok. You have clearly said that already. If you have nothing else, then I guess we can agree to disagree

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve thought about that before, personally, drunk driving is SO UNTHINKABLE to me, it’s never even occurred to me at any level of drunk. All the way down to near blackout drunk.

If the thought of killing someone doesn’t deter you that much, then maybe definitely ruining the rest of your life will have that effect. And if you really can’t trust your drunk self, if drunk you is so much more stupid, then yeah, society needs to scare you out of drinking in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The crux of the issue is they think they won’t hurt anyone. They give 0 thought to the idea they would hurt some. That’s how this happens. Any person who thinks they might hurt someone won’t drive. They gain false confidence by drive many times without incident.

I don’t think a single drink drive ever considered that they would hurt some or get hurt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, exactly. It's the same reason why punishment is only a deterrent to crime to certain extent, and it doesn't work absolutely.

You could make the punishment for shoplifting be summary execution, and it would still happen on a regular basis. Because people think they won't get caught, even with evidence of lots of people having been caught before.