Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

109

BaconComposter t1_j2uc6gf wrote

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

23

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.

32

BaconComposter t1_j2uepwe wrote

Good. Fuck them.

−13

rusty022 t1_j2uf8mk wrote

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

26

4moves t1_j2urymo wrote

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

4

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.

1

4moves t1_j2vdagy wrote

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

1

VeryOriginalName98 t1_j2vcbff wrote

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

9

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?

10

BaconComposter t1_j2ukr62 wrote

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

1

TransFattyAcid t1_j2upkyq wrote

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

2

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.

7

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

3

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....

3

BaconComposter t1_j2uq5hd wrote

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

4

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 .

5

BaconComposter t1_j2urwbm wrote

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

1

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

5

BaconComposter t1_j2ut1h5 wrote

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

1

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

6

BaconComposter t1_j2uu7oo wrote

I hate this website

3

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.

1

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 .

1

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'

1

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.

6

NewAlexandria t1_j2ukkmb wrote

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

0

WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_j2uq3le wrote

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

3