You must log in or register to comment.

WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2tsugh wrote

Why censor the word kill?


TransFattyAcid t1_j2txnpv wrote

I'm not sure if it's true or not, but people believe IG's algorithm deprioritizes posts that mention "violent" or sexual words like kill, suicide, OnlyFans, etc. There's a lot of words people censor over there or use "cute" alternatives like "unalive" or "🌽⭐"


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2tyvt5 wrote

I feel sorry for people that use actual social media for information like this, because they obviously aren't getting a unbiased or even a slightly skewed information base.

I don't use IG, or FB, or LinkedIn (ew), or SnapChat, or Twitter for that matter (or Trumps platform)

People are way too easily emotionally controlled by those algorithms . Sad


Von_Moistus t1_j2u9puo wrote

You see it on police interrogation videos on YouTube as well. Some guy will be telling the cops about how he dismembered a college student and mailed the body parts to foreign embassies, but if he happens to say the word “sex” then it gets muted. Gotta keep the algorithm happy. Strange.


wellarmedsheep t1_j2ubqme wrote

Its all advertising.

Companies don't want their shit advertised on stuff that has negative connotations.

This honestly has a chilling effect of the type of content made. For example, try making a modern, information based videos on WWII. Youtube will demonetize it, so Youtube educators just... don't.


damnscout t1_j2wqbhg wrote

There are other platforms you can put the videos up on. And they do it. And it's ad-free. You don't have the right to force people to buy something they don't want. People are still able to make the content they want and share it. Hell, even this subreddit has rules against certain types of content.


wellarmedsheep t1_j2yka7j wrote

I agree you can't force advertisers to spend ad dollars if they don't want to.

I'll have to disagree that it hasn't had a chilling effect. I dont have the examples off hand, but I know for sure creators have stopped content because of the policy.


damnscout t1_j34aqu3 wrote

If I didn’t know of literally other platforms that host excellent WW2 videos, I might agree with you. But no, they can make the content they want. They just want to get easy as money. That’s it.


Anna-intravert t1_j2x59i6 wrote

I definitely dont want to hear about that. I am sure the cop doesn't care to either.

But give a punishment to a drunk drive that means something, not a bad idea.


ramvan t1_j2v1d6c wrote

Corn star for porn star for only fans? Not 🦴🦵🍮? So disappointed in people.


Monte2903 t1_j2wrfjy wrote

I got a 7 day ban from Facebook for hate speech. The video I posted was a duck named Jerry biting some girl in the title, and thr caption was "kill her jerry!"

Funny fucking video by the way


dubdubdub3 t1_j2w6w1h wrote

It is true - recently IG even rolled out a feature that will let you see if your posts have been deemed too risqué/violent to be in “suggested”

Anything with overt sex or violence that the algorithm can pick up wont get suggested to other people they would have to find it themselves


CocoaMotive t1_j2ubvbe wrote

It's so fucking dumb. People now do the same with the words woman and mother and write wom×n and moth×r. Apparently women existing in the English language is too triggering for some people now.


I_am_Daesomst t1_j2ugrji wrote

Yeah, that's never gonna fucking happen here. I'm likely a lifelong Democrat because the other side is simply insane, and I'd describe myself as a liberal person. But, and I am literally laughing as I type this out because the whole thing is incredulous to me, it is just not going to happen.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2ucu89 wrote

I want to know, is using the word "Eskimo" racist ? Like, in your head, think about it, would that be considered racist?

  • If yes, then I guess you don't know that Eskimo is derived from the definition of "askimew", a Cree word meaning "he laces snowshoes", linguists believe that may have been the original name the Crees used to refer to their Inuit neighbors.

  • If no, then you probably already know the definition and details about the word Eskimo . Good for you.


dogmomdrinkstea t1_j2vi547 wrote

I mean, if you're not an indigenous person there then you don't get to decide if it's racist. No need to debate semantics.


StagLee1 t1_j2vyjum wrote

Yes, for instance three of my relatives who are descendents of indigenous people refer to themselves as Indians, as did my friend John Trudell, spokesperson of the American Indian Movement (AIM) that took over Alcatraz. My relatives do not like the term Native American, so I do not use that term, but so called enlightened people say using the term Indian makes me sound racially insensitive and culturally ignorant.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j327irg wrote

Well Native American literally means they literally were native to a country that didn't exist until we stole their land. I'd be pissed if I was called that too.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j3279ph wrote

So if the locals call the locals something, I can't decide if it's racist or not if I am not a local?



dogmomdrinkstea t1_j32lqff wrote

Yeah. It's pretty simple. You don't get to decide what is offensive towards another race.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j336cww wrote

At best, it's a ethnicity , as defined by census bureau, and science .

Here you go.

>race is often perceived as something that's inherent in our biology, and therefore inherited across generations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is typically understood as something we acquire, or self-ascribe, based on factors like where we live or the culture we share with others.

>major distinction between race and ethnicity: While race is ascribed to individuals on the basis of physical traits, ethnicity is more frequently chosen by the individual. And, because it encompasses everything from language, to nationality, culture and religion, it can enable people to take on several identities. Someone might choose to identify themselves as Asian American, British Somali or an Ashkenazi Jew, for instance, drawing on different aspects of their ascribed racial identity, culture, ancestry and religion.


dogmomdrinkstea t1_j33gdfj wrote

And the first time I specifically said indigenous to that area, meaning Inuit (the correct term).

Man, you wanna have permission to be racist so bad. No use talking to a brick wall, see ya.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j34fvtw wrote

Stop race shaming actual Races with your uneducated responses .

BTW, indigenous was a determination of if an individual was "Negro" or born in the Americas

>As a reference to a group of people, the term Indigenous first came into use by Europeans who used it to differentiate the Indigenous peoples of the Americas from enslaved Africans. It may have first been used in this context by Sir Thomas Browne. In Chapter 10 of Pseudodoxia Epidemica (1646), entitled "Of the Blackness of Negroes", Browne wrote "and although in many parts thereof there be at present swarms of Negroes serving under the Spaniard, yet were they all transported from Africa, since the discovery of Columbus; and are not indigenous or proper natives of America."[5][6]


point_breeze69 t1_j2ugbsc wrote

Fuck the Kree and anyone that supports those megalomaniacs!


dogmomdrinkstea t1_j2vidq4 wrote

Are....are you saying Kree as in blue-skinned Marvel movie characters or Cree as in the indigenous tribe? Highly hope it's the former bc otherwise yikes.


point_breeze69 t1_j2ws1hb wrote

You ever read those choose your own adventure books? I’ll let you decide as the reader. It’s more fun that way.


aelis68 t1_j2un0q2 wrote

Because the algorithms would block the post and /or ban the account if they didn’t.


[deleted] OP t1_j2tt5ga wrote

I am not sure why they did that but the message still gets across


Tacodude5 t1_j2tzqmq wrote

It's hard to pay support while you're in jail


KentSmashtacos t1_j2uwqdt wrote

This is my thought as well, shouldn't you be in jail anyway for a substantial time after vehicular manslaughter. It seems like anyone who serves such a sentence only to be released and owe massive debt is going to have zero incentive to work. Likely a jail bum for life, which doesn't seem to fix anything.

Also in cases where the individual has other child support obligations, doesn't this likely reduce the chances of any payment to zero.

Families should be entitled to a wrongful death settlement, child support shouldn't apply to this at all as it seems to cause more issues than solutions.


Tacodude5 t1_j2vbygq wrote

It just seems like a law to pander for votes.


Motocamperman t1_j2u4h7w wrote

They do that on purpose so that when you get out, you're already in debt slavery to the state (unless you're rich). Slavery is alive and well in 2023.


HopelesslyHuman t1_j2u8fsi wrote

There are many instances where you're correct. This is not one of them. You kill someone while driving drunk, you belong indebted to their family for life. It isn't a "mistake" or an "error in judgment." It's negligent homicide via selfish behavior.

Fuck people who drink and drive. They don't deserve pity, and they certainly don't deserve leniency in sentencing.


Motocamperman t1_j2uaz4v wrote

My statement wasn't really geared towards DUIs but a response to the reality so many come out of incarceration into. I have a friend who is back in jail because of legal debt he hasn't been able to overcome in the last few years. He'll be back in again in a couple years unless he can figure out how to make stacks. It's almost like they want them to get deeper into crime.


HopelesslyHuman t1_j2ud45l wrote

I am sympathetic toward such cases and you're not wrong that the criminal justice system is horribly classist and racist.

It's just that in this particular instance, I just can't find it in me to feel sympathy for those who drink and drive and ruin lives, though.


[deleted] OP t1_j2v35yy wrote

The point isn't to have sympathy, the point is to recognize a systemic problem and work to fix it. There's always going to be someone who "deserves" it but if the solution cripples more people than it helps and is otherwise completely unproductive outside of the privileged few who directly benefit from it, how can we, as a society, possibly justify keeping it around? What good it is?


bleepblopbl0rp t1_j2v6a4j wrote

I would wager that at least 50% of the population has driven over the limit at least once. America honestly drinks a ton. It's part of our culture at this point.


FerretRN t1_j2u9tez wrote

Exactly. You get behind the wheel when intoxicated and kill someone, you should be paying for it. Nothing will bring back the child's parent, but at least you can help them pay for college or have a cushion fund when they need it. Hopefully it goes straight into an account in the child's name.


TransFattyAcid t1_j2ty84j wrote

"Maintain the child's standard of living" would lead to some interesting inequities. If a rich person kills a poor parent, their child support payments would be much less than if a poor person killed a rich parent.

It would be more appropriate to base it on the criminal's income or simply have the criminal pay for the survivors' benefits the government will already be paying.


BaconComposter t1_j2uc6gf wrote

My child doesn’t deserve less just because I get killed by a loser.


rusty022 t1_j2uem48 wrote

Well unfortunately for your child the loser is literally incapable of paying for your child’s standard of living. So either take what the loser can provide or bankrupt the loser and only get support for like a year before he becomes homeless or something.


BaconComposter t1_j2uepwe wrote

Good. Fuck them.


rusty022 t1_j2uf8mk wrote

Sure, fuck ‘em. But you don’t get your child any money in this scenario


4moves t1_j2urymo wrote

but who cares. the law is designed to punish not help.


VeryOriginalName98 t1_j2vc6ex wrote

Not true. The law is designed to maintain an orderly society. Punishment is a disincentive, but not the only part of it. Rehabilitation and/or removal from society to prevent recurrence is also part of it.


4moves t1_j2vdagy wrote

They sound like 6 figure solutions. Jail n probation + community service is the only thing I ever see


VeryOriginalName98 t1_j2vcbff wrote

Being vindictive at the expense of your child seems like bad parenting. So fuck you instead.


TransFattyAcid t1_j2ukksq wrote

And you're satisfied with the opposite being true? A multi-millionare can kill you and pay your family his pocket change?


BaconComposter t1_j2ukr62 wrote

This isn’t about punitive Justice, it’s about making people whole.


TransFattyAcid t1_j2upkyq wrote

Fair enough. We have different opinions but I understand yours. Cheers!


dogmomdrinkstea t1_j2vij04 wrote

Whoa, can we refrain from calling poor people losers? Unless you're just saying drunk drivers are losers, in that case, carry on.


Electrical-Wish-519 t1_j2unemw wrote

Agreed. That’s why we have laws that drivers need insurance to pay wrongful death claims etc. and why every parent should have life insurance. I’m good with punitive damages on top of what insurance pays out, but lots of these guys are scum and don’t have a pot to piss in. Having a drunk driver working a min wage job after spending time in prison isn’t gonna be the boon for your kid


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2upvd9 wrote

Wait, Are you saying that you are the equivalent of a loser because the amount of what your child deserves would be equivalent to what you provide them....


BaconComposter t1_j2uq5hd wrote

No, I mean my kids would suffer because they can’t provide that standard of living.


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2uqzae wrote

"[..] My kid doesn't deserve less because I died by some loser."

  • There is no replacement for your income in any of the 49 states and district of Columbia aside from this law.

You're missing something I think.. If you contribute nothing (because anywhere else, you DESERVE nothing; according to the laws)to your minor kid, and you are killed Your child's standards of living aren't "perpetually reimbursed" with support payments .


BaconComposter t1_j2urwbm wrote

I’m saying that my children’s needs are not relative to the income of the person that killed me.


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2ushf7 wrote

That's exactly correct. Which is why it's irrelevant if you're hit by a loser and they can't pay anything , and it's irrelevant if you're hit by a rich person . No where else is your "standard of living" relative except for under this law, that has yet to be tested in court. You're irrelevant .Sadly


BaconComposter t1_j2ut1h5 wrote

I think the amount equivalent to child support is not unreasonable.


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2uu19y wrote

You're under the impression that child support actually is paid, and have no scope of the issues that arise just in FAMILY COURT, let alone if you are trying to traverse a criminal case into a family court situation because unless the law has set up a whole new legal administrative arm to deal with JUST THESE CASES, there would be no doubt that those families would never get paid.

Plus, I'm betting highly that insurance companies are going to drop coverage for payments on death benefits because that would be "double dipping" and screw the families out of civil judgment for wrongful death.. So.. It's probably understandable that you think equivalent child support is not unreasonable , because you only WANT it to not be unreasonable


BaconComposter t1_j2uu7oo wrote

I hate this website


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2uw6vk wrote

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(e) ( 1) If the surviving parent or guardian of the child brings a civil action against the defendant prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments as restitution and the surviving parent or guardian obtains a judgment in the civil suit, then no maintenance shall be ordered under this section.

(2) If the court orders the defendant to make child maintenance payments as restitution under this section and the surviving parent or guardian subsequently brings a civil action and obtains a judgment, then the child maintenance order shall be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2v3a4l wrote

Oh, and the lawyers are going to have a field day with the wording of that law. -

(e) ( 1) If the surviving parent or guardian of the child brings a civil action against the defendant;

  • prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments as restitution
  1. If the parent or guardian brings a suit prior to final sentencing, they must have a judgment before sentencing is completed. The word AND is a connecting word that BOTH needed to be fulfilled to fulfill the needs of e(1)

[...] AND the surviving parent or guardian obtains a judgment in the civil suit, then no maintenance shall be ordered under this section.

(2) If the court orders the defendant to make child maintenance payments as restitution under this section [and]

  1. Meaning that unless at final sentencing the judge orders child maintenance payments; (Because there has yet to be a Civil action against the defendant) there is a offset of the judgment awarded, which tend to be higher dollars only because they go to jury trials. They will receive nothing in "child maintenance".

and the surviving parent or guardian subsequently brings a civil action and obtains a judgment. [,]

then the child maintenance order shall be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.

  1. If the civil actions fails, then child maintenance will have to have been awarded by the judge prior.

Meaning, if the defendant lawyers up, the DUI and manslaughter (or whatever they wanna chalk it up to), could take 2+ years until it's all said and done, and the victim cannot start a civil action during that time or they are on a running clock because the judge cannot grant "child maintenance payments" if there is not a judgment before the criminal case concludes. Meaning , if the civil actions fail and you started before their case was done. You actually get nothing .


NewAlexandria t1_j2ujs2d wrote

why is that? the deceased parent would have been able to afford a standard of living that is now unavailable? If you make the law unfair, you give arrogant nihilists something to feel the 'struck back' and 'did a good deed'


TransFattyAcid t1_j2ukcbg wrote

It's already unfair, just like flat rate speeding tickets. The rich can commit the crime more laissez faire because the impact of the punishment on them doesn't phase them.


NewAlexandria t1_j2ukkmb wrote

this isn't a parking ticket. We're talking about someone dying.


WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2uq3le wrote

You asked him why... not to judge him for his own answer to your question...


JessicaDAndy t1_j2tztjy wrote

It sounds nice, so long as you have no understanding of how child support is supposed to work. Or how wrongful death law suits are supposed to compensate for a parent’s death.

I couldn’t find it there would be a payout under a wrongful death statute and this child support one.


Luke_Orlando t1_j2v4vrx wrote

If they want a drunk driver convicted of manslaughter to reasonably be able to pay child support, they're going to have to let that drunk driver have a car and a job.

I'm not really saying more than that. I think it kind of speaks for itself.


EnOhVeHey t1_j2uepcj wrote

Why draw the line at just drunk driving? So if you shoot me, my kid doesn’t deserve support?


damnscout t1_j2wsam6 wrote

How is a person in prison going to make money that would make a difference at all while most likely on death row?

The state already has laws for compensation in wrongful death. Why not strengthen that? Why involve the child at all? Just give the child the money upfront and let them be done with the whole situation. Why drag it out? Why torture the child further with monthly payments?

This law makes good headlines, but that's all.


AuroraLorraine522 t1_j2y3qgc wrote

If you think taking a life puts someone on death row… boy, do I have news for you.


damnscout t1_j349w4w wrote

Always? No. But the only way what you said makes sense is if you think it never does… kid, I have news for you.


AuroraLorraine522 t1_j39h3fr wrote

I mean, feel free to prove me wrong, but of the 130ish inmates on death row in PA, none of them are there for drunk driving that resulted in a death. WITH PRIORS, the mandatory minimum for DUI Homicide in PA is 5-7 years for each death.


damnscout t1_j3t1gqn wrote

Drunk driving? We are talking about people shooting other people.

From the parent's comment: "So if you shoot me..."

That's the context of my response and the discussion in this thread. Might want to rethink... everything?


Jiveturkwy158 t1_j2xrufg wrote

Thank you for this, on one hand can’t disagree with the intent here but was struggling to articulate what I didn’t like. Easier to get a lump payment out of insurance etc that may cause sale of possessions/bankruptcy than a trickling ongoing payment.

Keeping things simple/straightforward tends to be the better legislation imo.


drxdrg08 t1_j2zl7ia wrote

> This law makes good headlines, but that's all.

A civil judgement for wrongful death can be dismissed during bankruptcy. So the perp in theory can get a clean slate and keep all earnings.

I didn't read the text of the law, but the idea is probably to get around that.


Dredly t1_j2tsalj wrote

The logistics associated with this would cripple the already terrible PA Domestics system.


They should be fined the full amount owed, not be paying child support, this setup is just dumb


victorix58 t1_j2u8qc9 wrote

Could do it as restitution, instead of a fine. Fines just go to the court or state; restitution goes back to the victim the court directs it at.


courageous_liquid t1_j2us0ea wrote

We could treat people that murder people with cars the same that murder people with weapons, for a start.

I'm willing to support reform for rehabilitation to lessen recidivism but it's insane to think you can recklessly murder someone and get off scott free.


gslavik t1_j2v19ys wrote

Murder requires mens rea towards the specific person. This is negligent homicide or manslaughter at best. (IANAL)


courageous_liquid t1_j2v26ly wrote

If you want to murder someone just hit them with a car; nothing will happen.


gslavik t1_j2v6sqz wrote

Still murder.


courageous_liquid t1_j2v808w wrote

Slap on the wrist though


gslavik t1_j2v9zqr wrote

Nope. Murder is murder, regardless what tool is used to accomplish it.

There is an argument to be made that it might be difficult to prove intent when a car is involved, but then I'd posit that it might be difficult in any number of circumstances.


RustedRelics t1_j2u7c4v wrote

This seems unworkable and possibly legally questionable at best. Like the underlying moral push, but this is going to be messy to administer and costly to litigate.


Juidawg t1_j2wcvan wrote

Exactly. Feel-Good Law for Facebook Feed.

Nice thought I guess, but How is someone gonna pay child support when they are doing 10-20 years for manslaughter?


Anonymous_Otters t1_j2u7hoo wrote

This sounds like a law written be someone with a second grade understand of the law.


Shad0wSmurf t1_j2v4w24 wrote

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(e) ( 1) If the surviving parent or guardian of the child brings a civil action against the defendant prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments as restitution and the surviving parent or guardian obtains a judgment in the civil suit, then no maintenance shall be ordered under this section.

(2) If the court orders the defendant to make child maintenance payments as restitution under this section and the surviving parent or guardian subsequently brings a civil action and obtains a judgment, then the child maintenance order shall be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.


Anonymous_Otters t1_j2v76te wrote



Shad0wSmurf t1_j2ve25d wrote

For context .. I agree with you.. sheesh


Anonymous_Otters t1_j2y419s wrote

I just didn't know how to respond to someone flat posting the textual details of the law with zero context. Saying "ok" was a lowkey hint that posting something like that without any context doesn't really add to the conversation. Thank you for clarifying your position.


victorix58 t1_j2u8las wrote

Nice in theory.

Would require constant court proceedings to enforce. Will the victims' family want to be reminded of it so often? Will they enjoy being reminded by having money from their parents' killer or the killer's name coming up for contempt via nonpayment?

Better to do a lump sum as part of restitution in sentencing. Leave it to the criminal court, you don't need a civil court handling child support involved.


TheNorseHorseForce t1_j2ujpu3 wrote

Ten bucks says that the state will start paying the bills and then the convicted individual will pay the state.

Then, if the person stops paying, it'll be easier to arrest them, as it'll already be in the system.


victorix58 t1_j2ulfre wrote

I'll take that wager.

The state isn't all that generous. They don't do that with any other restitution ordered in a criminal case. Or child support.


jryan14ify t1_j2uwos8 wrote

Agreed. Nor do many states have the budget to be able to suddenly start paying large sums of money for decades


Dunn_or_what t1_j2u3bbp wrote

It's hard to pay child support from a prison cell unless you're rich. Also, unless there are riders in your insurance plan saying they do not cover DUI accidents, the support would be covered by the insurance company if I'm not mistaken.


couchgodd t1_j2u6fyx wrote

You going to garnish the wages of the opiate addict with no job?


bushwhack227 t1_j2tscaq wrote

Why stop at drunk driving? How about anyone found liable in a car accident that leads to death of a parent? Maybe it will convince people to finally put their phones down when they're behind the wheel


[deleted] OP t1_j2u0470 wrote



bushwhack227 t1_j2u6r8a wrote

Study after study has shown that distracted driving is tantamount to driving while impaired. Just because public perception hasn't caught on to that doesn't mean the legal system can't


[deleted] OP t1_j2ub1l4 wrote



Joe_Jeep t1_j2uctf5 wrote

Well it leads to them very often


[deleted] OP t1_j2uerc6 wrote



bushwhack227 t1_j2uhch8 wrote

There are crashes where neither driver is at fault. A collision caused by a distracted driver is not one of them


[deleted] OP t1_j2uhf3p wrote



FawltyPython t1_j2udc3a wrote

Or how about corporations or government agencies whose policies result in deaths?


UnableAudience7332 t1_j2u44e7 wrote

And why just deaths from driving? What about straight-up murder of a parent?


gslavik t1_j2v125d wrote

The issue is that straight up murder (actual intent) comes with a lengthy prison term and a poor employment prospects.

And on the more macabre side, this could lead to people killing children along with parents just to escape the child support.


demonicego93 t1_j2vcwy3 wrote

Ah yes. All the ramifications of murdering someone with my car didn't matter before but now that there's a slim chance I'll have to pay child support I guess I better put my phone down.


bushwhack227 t1_j2wkk6p wrote

The issue is that all too often, there are no consequences at all for distracted driving, even when it results in a fatal accident. This used to be the case with DUIs as well until the legal system started testing it like the serious crime it is


demonicego93 t1_j2wxepa wrote

Totally true. It's just also true that this form of justice doesn't work and government needs to be taking a preventative approach ie. regulating industry/creating safer roads rather than a reactive approach. One approach only hurts the average person, the other hurts power and big money.


570Cars t1_j2u7u0f wrote

I agree with the principle, but I see way more flaws than I do benefits.


Finrodsrod t1_j2ug34y wrote

How the hell are they supposed to pay if they're in jail for killing someone?


enemy_of_your_enema t1_j2udk2o wrote

I really don't think that stiff penalties are a good way to reduce crime. Drink driving is just something we'll have to deal with until we rely less and less on cars.


demonicego93 t1_j2vc6as wrote

Individualizing societal problems is bad. Punitive justice is bad. I highly doubt this law is gonna be workable anyway.


NoWarrantShutUp t1_j2urpxh wrote

Sounds like a mess that will cause more issues than necessary


mindwatcher607 t1_j2vy2pj wrote

This is gonna make more criminals. You think impaired drivers are gonna turn their lives around and go work hard and pay that? Nope. They are gonna end up in jail for non payment. Then we will just have more people who are filled with hate and despair on the streets, which leads to more reckless behavior. It's a sad revolving door this isn't the solution. I do agree people who CAN PAY should pay something, but an agreed upon amount based on the individual situation of both households.


SyzygySynergy t1_j2x7aaw wrote

Honestly this feels like some moderately decent written, buzz-word containing copy made for feel-good political promises that are (a) not feasible and (b) never going to happen even if they were.

The first problem I have with this is the very important factor that the money would have to come from somewhere in most cases. Unless we're going to take a more serious approach to the prison-labor topic, this wouldn't be all too feasible. Which honestly, for many reasons, I think should be looked at more seriously anyway. From a correction, reform, and even imprisonment angle, allowing prisoners to work inside (in most cases) the prison or even outside the prison for wages that can go towards their outside dues (child support included) and debt, their inside commissary, their outside family needs, and other things would be worth discussing at length. Especially since this aids to exit-rehabilitation because a lot of work would require training and this opens the gate to what an inmate may occupationally be able to do post-release. However, for so many reasons this sounds like it may prove functionally unfeasible -- especially where it comes to decision makers actually putting something beneficial in place rather than leave everything the same because their pockets are the ones being lined.

The second problem I have with this is that it probably won't happen. And I say this because there are other systems in place for wrongful death, pain and suffering, etc. But not only that, but there are also systems in place currently in 2023 that are supposedly erected and churned to work for people that are supposed to get any kind of support as it is and yet arrears still climb in many cases and in many of those cases is still left unchecked despite it supposedly being a crime and many other things. Yes, cases are pursued all the time for arrears and wage garnishment, litigation, jail time are imposed in some of those cases but not all and it's fair to say that many people owed support won't see that support and it's also fair to say that the system in some of those cases isn't going to or will claim to be unable to (falsely or factually) do anything about it. So, another system of support when all other cases of support are teeter-totters at best and fundamentally incapable of being relied upon seems like either a failure waiting to happen or even an idea that will never happen to the way that they're making it seem like it will happen if it even happens at all.


baubt t1_j2xv62e wrote

What a stupid bill. Everyone wants to treat drunk driving differently than other crimes because of feels.


Lawmonger t1_j2udxs6 wrote

All you have to do is collect it.


kenziethemom t1_j2ujltz wrote

I may be biased because my mom has 5 DWI's and she caused an accident when I was 4 where my uncle became permanently brain damaged because she was drunk driving, but they didn't even charge her then. I do like the idea. I'm not sure about all the details, but I personally am for the discussion of certain details.

But I am ultimately for the idea.


azsoup t1_j2ul3ew wrote

I’m not a lawyer but wouldn’t the victims family claim something in civil court?


gslavik t1_j2v0myq wrote

Going off the top of my head: Out of ~40k motor vehicle deaths in US (in a year) about ~10k deaths involved a drunk driver (NHTSA data). CDC lists all of these as accidents. This is country wide data.


pepskino t1_j2vbhc9 wrote

Social security survivors benifits pays for kids with dead parents pretty well i don’t get the point .. this makes no sense besides emotion


werdmouf t1_j2w019m wrote

Might want to rewrite that


Sellier123 t1_j2x1ypb wrote

Why only drunk? Any impaired driving should trigger this.


Professional-Sand341 t1_j2xd8bt wrote

As the child of someone killed by a drunk driver, I can't support it enough. My mom struggled to make up for someone else's actions. The driver didn't just steal my father and her husband. He threw her into an economic tailspin she was unprepared to handle.


chuckie512 t1_j2uli80 wrote

Maybe we should actually take people's licenses away too.


89GTAWS6 t1_j2xaglb wrote

In most cases they do. The only way I can see that you wouldn't get a license suspension in PA for a DUI is if it's a first time offense ,AND you're over 21, AND your BAC is less than .10 (which used to be the legal limit), AND you don't have a CDL, AND you weren't driving a school bus, AND you don't refuse a blood test. If ALL these things don't align and you aren't using Saul Goodman then license is revoked.

Second offense with a CDL is permanent revocation.

Get caught driving (even sober) on a revoked license due to a DUI charge is straight to jail.


chuckie512 t1_j2xnta2 wrote

Except a judge can (and frequently do) grant exceptions for "financial hardships".

You can also get a restricted license back after 30 days that allows you to drive for business purposes (including self employment)


BigDaddyCaddy68 t1_j2wavng wrote

How bout we start at not allowing people to get anything more than their first DUI? We all make mistakes, but the first should be a really expensive one to deter you from doing it again. Anything more than one should be fucking jail. My uncle was an alcoholic and had multiple DUIs, to the point where he bad to buy the in car breathalyzer. He told the courts he couldn’t afford it and never got it installed.

Enforcement of this would also reuire law enforcement to do their jobs. For context: wife is an ER nurse and almost every shift has someone come in with police who is clearly inebriated, but the cops don’t want to file the paperwork, and the person goes free. 🤷🏻‍♂️


No-Setting9690 t1_j2wml6a wrote

Usually a civil case takes care of that, and a lot more. Am I wrong on that?


thilehoffer t1_j2wt1cb wrote

I guess, but wouldn’t that person be in jail for murder? How are they going to have an income to pay it?


ConsequenceDapper474 t1_j2ysbo2 wrote

I am here for any bill that will hold people accountable for their actions.


BasvoyD t1_j2zsd1p wrote

They should do that for this and every country!


five_eight t1_j2veqa9 wrote

Should crappy drivers who kill a parent while sober get away with it?


Gohron t1_j2xe0kn wrote

I’d be for this even if alcohol isn’t involved. Around Philly, most people drive their vehicles like they believe the rules of physics don’t apply to them and it couldn’t possibly be dangerous.


BasvoyD t1_j2zmqsz wrote

Completely agree and would back this


StyreneAddict1965 t1_j2uxm9q wrote

Fucking A. My cousin and his wife were killed by a drunk, and left a kid and orphan.


Alfa505 t1_j2uvqz4 wrote

I agree with this 💯


itsallfornaught2 t1_j2u8fd9 wrote

Yes please! Anyone that drives drunk deserves everything coming to them.


CSimmSF t1_j2tvl40 wrote



point_breeze69 t1_j2ug1bo wrote

They should be required to pay the bar tab for that child til they are 21.