DUIs leading to parent's death would require child support from driver under Alabama bill
An Alabama Senate committee is considering legislation that would require individuals to support the child of another family if they are convicted of a driving under the influence offense that resulted in a parent's death.
The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed action last week on SB 167, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, would require such support to be paid until the child turns 19.
'The premise is to make sure we take care of the minor children that are left behind if the breadwinner is killed,' Orr said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
He told the committee that the idea from the bill originated from Texas. Orr said he thought to himself, 'Well, if it will prevent DUIs (driving under the influence), to know how serious we are about it.'
The penalty would be in addition to other restitution that an individual who is convicted of the crime would owe.
A death resulting from a person operating a motor vehicle or vessel while intoxicated is considered criminally negligent homicide under Alabama law, a Class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Language in the bill states that the court may consider the financial needs and resources of the surviving children as well as the parent or guardian, or the state of Alabama if no one else is available to care for the children.
Other factors the court could consider include the standard of living of the family, the physical and emotional needs of the children as well as educational considerations.
'The reasonable work-related child care expenses of the surviving parent or guardian,' the bill states.
Orr also proposed an amendment to the legislation stating that the penalty is separate from any civil penalties that a court may impose in the case because of wrongful death, which could add to the financial burden of those who are convicted.
Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore, had concerns that the penalty could effectively require the person convicted of the parent's death to have a relationship with the family whose loved one was killed.
'I don't know if we want to go that route,' he said to the committee. 'I can see creative lawyers using that in that way.'
Albritton also said he was concerned about the broader impact the legislation has on the community.
'What about the guy who does this, and he has a family of his own?' Albritton said. 'We are not only punishing the individual, but we are also taking, and affecting more people, for the act of an individual. I think we need to be cautious of this.'
Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, asked the committee to consider the situation when a parent loses a child because a person is driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
'If we are going to do something like this, I think we need to consider all cases when things happen by someone,' she said.
After hearing all the arguments, Orr withdrew his proposed amendment and requested that a vote be delayed.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
6 quick questions to help you understand the Epstein probe
Struggling to understand where we are in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking probe? You're probably not alone. The big picture: We've answered six questions to explain the basics of the Epstein investigation and President Trump's past relationship with the financier, given the intensifying public pressure on this administration to release court files. Case in point: On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Senate Democrats announced they'd use an obscure federal law to get the Justice Department to release more Epstein court documents. Schumer said the request includes "all documents, files, evidence and other materials" in the DOJ's and FBI's possession related to the case. Here are the questions we're answering about Epstein: Who is Jeffrey Epstein and who did he know? Epstein was a powerful financier in New York who became well-known for his wealth. He was later charged with sex trafficking but died before facing trial. He had a mysterious yet opulent lifestyle, according to multiple reports. His social circle included Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, per the Miami Herald. How did Epstein know Trump? Trump and Epstein's association received renewed attention this month following a Wall Street Journal report alleging a "bawdy" birthday letter to Epstein that bore Trump's name. Throughout the '90s, Trump and Epstein were seen together at social events. Trump spoke fondly of Epstein in a 2002 interview with New York Magazine, calling him a "terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with," Trump said at the time. "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Yes but: In 2004, the two went head-to-head in a property fight for a Palm Beach mansion, according to The Washington Post. When Epstein was arrested and charged in 2019, Trump told reporters he wasn't a "fan" of Epstein and hadn't spoken to him in 15 years. "He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago," Trump said. What was Jeffrey Epstein arrested for? In 2019, Epstein was charged in federal court in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. He pleaded not guilty and was held without bail. Multiple women filed lawsuits against Epstein following his arrest. Flashback: Epstein was indicted on minor prostitution charges in 2008. The charges were dropped in exchange for Epstein pleading guilty to a single count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor. He planned to serve an 18-month stint at the Palm Beach County stockade compound. He was released roughly five months early. When did Jeffrey Epstein die? Epstein died in 2019 after an apparent suicide at Manhattan's Metropolitan Correctional Center. Law enforcement officials said at the time that Epstein hanged himself before he was found in his jail cell. Epstein was under extra security in a special unit of the prison, but he was not under suicide watch. Trump at the time called for a "full investigation" into Epstein's death. He also elevated a conspiracy theory that linked Epstein's death to the Clintons. Context: Trump's Justice Department and FBI said in July that they concluded that there was no evidence that Epstein was murdered. The administration released a video that showed no one entered the area of the prison where Epstein was held when he died. The 10-hour video had a "missing minute" that, authorities said, stemmed from an old surveillance recording system that resets everyday — leaving one minute unrecorded. What is the Epstein list? Many in MAGA circles have speculated for years that Epstein kept a "client list" of powerful figures. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested it was on her desk in a Fox News interview in February when the DOJ released more than 100 pages of documents related to the case, including flight logs, a redacted contact book and masseuse list and an evidence list. Yes, but: The Justice Department and FBI concluded in July there was no evidence that Epstein blackmailed powerful figures or kept a client list. FBI deputy director Dan Bongino clashed with Bondi over the handling of the files and even took a day off from work over the squabble. What is the Epstein files debate? Zoom out: The Trump administration's release of the Epstein files triggered a debate between Trump's followers, Republicans and Democrats. Many have called for the release of all files related to Epstein for transparency sake. What's next: Senate Democrats said Wednesday they planned to use the "Rule of Five" law, which allows any five members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to request information about any matter related to the committee, to push the DOJ to release more details from the Epstein case.
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Bessent says new Trump child savings accounts are ‘back door for privatizing Social Security'
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Bessent's remarks. The idea of privatizing Social Security has been raised, and abandoned, by Republicans before, as millions of Americans have come to rely on the certainty of the federal government providing monthly checks in old age. Privatization proposals would shift the responsibility for retirement funds away from the government onto Americans, through personal savings accounts that may or may not be enough to live on. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Under the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' as the law is called, Republicans launched a new children's savings program, Trump Accounts, which can be created for babies born in the U.S. and come with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. Advertisement Much like an individual retirement account, the Trump Accounts can grow over time, with a post-tax contribution limit of $5,000 a year, and are expected to be treated similarly to the rules for an IRA, and can eventually be tapped for distribution in adulthood. Advertisement But Bessent on Wednesday allowed for another rationale for the accounts, suggesting they could eventually be the way Americans save for retirement. 'In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security,' Bessent said while speaking about the program. Ever since the George W. Bush administration considered proposals to privatize Social Security more than 20 years ago, Republicans have publicly moved away from talking about the issue that proved politically unpopular and was swiftly abandoned. In the run-up to the 2006 midterms, Democrats capitalized on GOP plans to privatize Social Security, warning it would decimate the program that millions of Americans have come to rely on in older age. They won back control of both the House and the Senate in Congress. The Democrats warned Wednesday that Bessent's comments showed that Republicans want to shift the government-run program to a private one and are again trying to dismantle the retirement program that millions of Americans depend on. 'Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security,' Tim Hogan, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. 'It wasn't enough to kick millions of people off their health care and take food away from hungry kids. Trump is now coming after American seniors with a 'backdoor' scam to take away the benefits they earned,' Hogan said. The program has faced dire financial projections for decades, but changes have long been politically unpopular. Social Security's trust funds, which cover old age and disability recipients, will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, according to the most recent report from the programs trustees. Advertisement Those officials have said those findings underline the urgency of making changes to programs. Trump, attuned to Social Security's popularity, has repeatedly said he would protect it. Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would 'always protect Social Security' and said his Democratic opponents, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, would destroy the program. During the 2024 presidential primary campaign, he also accused other Republicans who have expressed support for raising the age for Social Security of being threats to the program. Trump said in an interview with NBC's 'Meet the Press' in December after he won the presidential election, 'We're not touching Social Security, other than we might make it more efficient.' His White House this year said Trump 'will always protect Social Security.' Social Security Agency Commissioner Frank Bisignano, a Wall Street veteran, was asked at his confirmation hearing in March about whether Social Security should be privatized and said he'd 'never heard a word of it' and 'never thought about it.'
Hamilton Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
North Carolina lawmakers approve stopgap spending measure amid budget impasse
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina legislators gave final approval Wednesday to a stopgap spending measure to boost state government spending to prepare for fall classes, cover Medicaid expenses and continue construction projects while a Republican agreement on a comprehensive budget still remains distant. The GOP-controlled General Assembly took a break five weeks ago with House and Senate negotiators far apart on working out a two-year, $66 billion budget for the ninth-largest state that should have been in place by July 1. North Carolina is one of a few states that have not yet enacted a budget this fiscal year. Teacher and state employee pay, the expansion of previously approved future tax cuts and the extent of vacant position eliminations were among the top disagreements in the competing plans each chamber approved in the spring. These and other issues remain pending. 'It takes time to negotiate a good budget,' GOP Rep. Donny Lambeth, one of the House's top negotiators, told colleagues on Wednesday. 'We have the option of moving fast for the sake of being agreeable and pass something quickly that hits a fabricated deadline. Or we work intensely to stand on the basic needs within our state.' State law already preempts the threat of a government shutdown. But Republicans who reconvened the legislature this week largely to consider overrides of Democratic Gov. Josh Stein's vetoes also worked out a 'mini-budget' they say would allocate $2.3 billion over two years to address agreed-upon pressing needs. 'The funding that's in this version of a limited budget will get us to the next step in our negotiations,' House Speaker Destin Hall told reporters. But neither Hall nor Senate leader Phil Berger had a good read this week on if and when a broader budget agreement would be reached. The General Assembly's schedule allows lawmakers to reconvene monthly into early 2026. with the next potential meeting Aug. 26. Berger suggested to reporters that additional 'mini-budgets' were possible in the months ahead: 'We will continue to have conversations between the House and the Senate to see if there are other matters that we would be able to agree to take up.' The stopgap plan includes money to cover anticipated enrollment changes for K-12 schools and community colleges, as well as for experience-based pay raises already in state law for teachers and some state employees. There's also $600 million more to meet the increasing costs of Medicaid. It's a common adjustment made annually. But the amount is getting more attention as the spending reduction law passed by Congress this month contains Medicaid reductions that threatens future enrollment levels in North Carolina. The plan also includes over $800 million for state construction projects, $197 million for state employee retirement and health care and money to hire additional driver's license examiners and build more Division of Motor Vehicles offices to address long lines. But it also directs three state departments to cut millions of dollars in spending by eliminating vacant positions. Current and future budget bills go to Stein. His office was reviewing Wednesday's bill, which despite some complaints from Democratic lawmakers passed by wide House and Senate margins. As override votes began at the General Assembly on Tuesday, Stein held a news conference urging lawmakers to focus on passing a complete budget that provides items to his liking, instead of trying to enact over his objections bills that in part loosened gun regulations and eliminated a greenhouse gas reduction mandate. 'That is the wrong priority,' Stein said. 'We need to focus on what matters and not these sideshows, which are distractions.' Republicans are one House seat shy of a veto-proof majority at the General Assembly, giving some leverage to Stein seeking legislation more to his liking. But as seen on Tuesday, when eight of Stein's 14 vetoes this year were overriden, GOP leaders have been able to persuade some Democrats to side with them on certain issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
