By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Cecilia Williams, whose family was devastated by a drunk driving incident, is advocating for “Bentley and Mason’s Law,” a bill named after her grandsons who lost their parents and sibling. This legislation would require individuals convicted of killing a parent while driving under the influence to pay child support to the surviving children. Senator Mike Henderson has championed the bill, which has seen previous attempts to pass, and currently faces no opposition as the family hopes for its passage this year. Versions of this law have already been enacted in six other states, with Missouri ranking high nationally for DUI cases.
Read the original article here
A recent legislative proposal in Missouri is sparking considerable discussion, aiming to hold drunk drivers financially responsible for the children they leave behind. This bill would require individuals who kill a parent while driving under the influence to pay child support, a move intended to provide a measure of financial stability for the orphaned children. The core idea is that the individual responsible for the death of a caregiver should bear some responsibility for the ongoing care of the children left motherless or fatherless.
The practical implementation of such a law naturally raises immediate questions, chief among them being how this would function when the perpetrator is incarcerated. If a drunk driver has caused a fatality, it’s highly probable they will face jail time. The question then becomes how someone imprisoned can fulfill child support obligations. The proposed bill suggests that payments would commence after the offender’s release from jail, potentially through wage garnishment or deductions from assets. This acknowledges that immediate financial contribution from someone behind bars is unlikely, but establishes a future financial responsibility.
There’s a general sentiment that Missouri is doing something commendable with this bill, with some even suggesting it should be adopted as federal legislation. This indicates a widespread feeling that the current system might be insufficient in addressing the long-term consequences faced by children who lose a parent due to impaired driving. The principle behind the bill seems to resonate with many, suggesting a desire for greater accountability and a more robust safety net for affected families.
However, a significant concern raised is the financial capacity of convicted drunk drivers to actually pay child support. It’s pointed out that many individuals who commit such offenses may not possess substantial assets or stable income even before their conviction, and this situation is unlikely to improve while they are incarcerated. The fraction of offenders who would actually have the means to provide ongoing financial support is seen as potentially very small, which could limit the bill’s practical impact.
A nuanced perspective emerges when considering the severity of the tragedy. One comment hopes that the payment obligation wouldn’t decrease if a child were also killed in the incident, which, while a grim thought, highlights the immense loss and the desire for some form of redress to be as comprehensive as possible.
The discussion also broadens to encompass the underlying principle of holding those who cause severe harm financially accountable. Some suggest that this concept could be generalized beyond drunk driving, potentially applying to all forms of murder and manslaughter. The idea of such a law being broadly popular is voiced, suggesting that the public might support holding offenders accountable for the financial well-being of dependents left behind.
The potential impact on insurance premiums is also a consideration. If this were to be treated as an insurance liability, it’s speculated that insurance costs within the state could rise, creating an unintended consequence for many. This points to the complex interplay of financial responsibility and its broader economic effects.
Despite some of these practical and economic concerns, there’s a strong undercurrent of agreement with the fundamental idea. Many express that it’s a concept they hadn’t previously considered but find intuitively just. The bill, on its face, is viewed by many as a “surprisingly good idea” and “not an unreasonable law,” reflecting a moral inclination towards ensuring children are cared for.
Yet, the idea isn’t without its critics who believe it might be more about generating positive public relations than a well-thought-out solution. The concern is that it might be perceived as “performative nonsense” or a superficial attempt to address a deeply complex issue, especially when considering the limited financial resources of many convicted offenders.
Further questions arise regarding the scope of the bill. Some wonder why it’s limited to drunk drivers and not extended to other forms of vehicular homicide or even broader categories of crimes that result in parental death. The argument is that the consequences for children are just as devastating regardless of the specific circumstances of their parent’s death. This points to a desire for a more universally applied form of justice and support.
The practicalities of enforcing such a law across state lines are also brought up. If an offender moves out of state after their release, enforcing child support payments could become significantly more challenging. This highlights the jurisdictional complexities of legal enforcement.
The disparity in sentencing for different offenses is another point of contention. It’s noted that in some states, a drunk driving fatality might result in a significantly shorter sentence than a first-degree murder charge, even when the latter doesn’t involve a substance that is legally obtainable. This comparison suggests a perceived imbalance in how the legal system addresses different types of homicides.
The underlying belief that more severe punishments are needed is also present in some comments. The idea of prisons being “double packed” reflects a punitive sentiment that aims to deter crime through sheer capacity.
Reflecting on personal experiences, one individual who received a DUI acknowledges their fault and the severe consequences. They express that even if they had harmed someone, they would still support such a bill, recognizing its valuable purpose despite the financial devastation it would cause. However, they also offer a psychological perspective, suggesting that while the policy is good for societal justice, its preventative effectiveness might be limited. They argue that the immediate perception of consequences, rather than the severity of potential future punishment, often dictates behavior in the moment of crisis.
The concern about unintended consequences is a recurring theme. It’s acknowledged that while the intention is good, the practical application could be fraught with difficulties. The question of what happens to families without children, or how to ensure equal provision for children whose parents are killed by individuals without financial means, are valid points of discussion.
The notion that inmates “notoriously have a lot of income” is met with skepticism, highlighting the widely held perception that incarcerated individuals are generally not in a financial position to pay significant sums. This skepticism fuels the argument that the bill might be more symbolic than effective.
However, counterarguments suggest that not all offenders are destitute. Some may have existing assets, investments, or the potential for future earnings that could be subject to garnishment. The idea that “not everyone has $0 in the bank” is presented as a realistic counterpoint to the assumption of universal poverty among offenders.
The timing of payments is also a key detail. It’s mentioned that payments are intended to start a year after release from jail, acknowledging the period of reintegration and potential difficulty in securing immediate employment. This suggests a considered approach to the post-incarceration financial obligations.
The bill’s intent to encourage the use of ride-sharing services and other alternatives to drunk driving is seen by some as a necessary, albeit drastic, measure to combat a persistent problem. The argument is that until people face significant and tangible consequences, they may not alter their behavior.
The “them problem” sentiment suggests a detachment from the issue, but this is countered by the more widely held view that the bill addresses a serious societal issue. The idea of “slave labor” is a hyperbolic, yet pointed, comment on how offenders might be compelled to work to meet their financial obligations.
The personal anecdote of a coworker who killed a father of two while driving drunk and was out of jail in less than a year, subsequently engaging in drug use while on probation, powerfully illustrates the perceived inadequacy of current punishments and the need for stronger accountability measures. This real-life example underscores the urgency and the emotional weight behind the proposed legislation.
The distinction between state and federal DUI laws is clarified, with federal laws typically applying only on federal land, leaving state legislatures to create traffic laws. This explains why such a bill would be a state-level initiative.
A strong argument is made against using the inability of some to pay as a reason to dismiss the bill entirely. The principle of establishing the obligation, with enforcement mechanisms like garnishment and asset seizure, is emphasized as a way to ensure accountability, even if not all offenders can meet the obligation immediately.
The notion that child support would decrease if the child is also killed is questioned, with the logical point being raised that there would be no one to pay child support to in such a tragic scenario.
The discussion touches upon the Eighth Amendment and its protection against cruel and unusual punishment, raising questions about whether mandatory child support payments for convicted felons could be seen as such. However, this is generally countered by the argument that this isn’t merely a drunk driving charge but a consequence of taking a life, and that the severity of the punishment should be consistent with the severity of the crime.
A compelling point is made regarding the psychological impact of punishment. The argument is that the *certainty* of being caught, even with a less severe penalty, is a more effective deterrent than the *possibility* of a severe penalty with a low chance of apprehension. This perspective suggests that while the Missouri bill aims for severity, the focus on increasing the likelihood of accountability might be equally, if not more, important for prevention.
The rationale behind the bill is further solidified by distinguishing it from other forms of debt. It’s argued that this is not about student loans or predatory credit card debt, but about compensating for a deliberate, life-ending action. The responsibility lies with those who “chose to drink and drive and subsequently killed someone.”
Ultimately, while acknowledging the complexities and potential challenges, the underlying sentiment supporting the Missouri bill appears to be one of seeking greater justice and ensuring that children are not left to bear the full burden of a parent’s fatal mistake. The conversation, though wide-ranging, consistently returns to the core idea of accountability and the desire for a more comprehensive approach to supporting victims of drunk driving fatalities.