SB384 would expand Hawaii’s victim restitution law to require a court, when a defendant is convicted of first-degree negligent homicide for causing a death while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, to include financial support for the decedent’s surviving minor children. The support would continue until each child turns 18, or until age 23 if the child is enrolled full-time in college, university, vocational school, or trade school. The amount would be set by the court and paid to the person responsible for raising the children.
The bill also amends the state restitution statute to clarify that restitution must fully reimburse victims for losses and may include property damage, medical and mental health expenses, funeral and burial costs, lost earnings, and the new child-support-like restitution category for qualifying DUI-related negligent homicide cases. It specifies that a defendant’s ability to pay does not affect the amount ordered, though it may affect timing and manner of payment, and it preserves existing rights and proceedings that arose before the act’s effective date. The measure is set to take effect on July 1, 2050.
Impact
SB384 would modify section 706-646 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by adding a new restitution category tied to first-degree negligent homicide convictions involving impaired driving. In practice, it would create a court-ordered financial obligation for offenders to help support surviving children of the deceased victim, extending restitution beyond traditional victim losses to ongoing family support. The bill would affect defendants convicted under section 707-702.5(1)(a), courts determining restitution, and the caregivers receiving the payments.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, at least in committee, as the Senate Transportation and Culture and the Arts Committee passed it 4-0 with amendments. The bill’s findings and purpose reflect a strong policy concern for children left financially vulnerable after DUI-related fatalities, framing the measure as a way to make offenders bear the costs of the harm they caused. No opposing testimony or recorded floor debate is provided in the materials, so the overall sentiment appears supportive but not fully documented.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether restitution should be expanded to include ongoing child support for victims’ children in criminal cases, rather than limiting restitution to direct losses such as funeral costs, medical bills, and lost income. Potential points of contention include the scope of criminal restitution, the burden placed on defendants, and how courts would calculate and enforce the support amount. The bill also raises questions about the interaction between restitution and family-support obligations, especially because the payment is tied to the offender’s criminal conviction and not a separate civil support proceeding.