SB384 would expand Hawaii’s victim restitution law to require courts, in certain DUI-related negligent homicide cases, to include financial support for the decedent’s surviving minor children as part of restitution. Specifically, if a defendant is convicted of first-degree negligent homicide for causing a death while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the court would order restitution to help pay for raising the victim’s children until age 18, or until age 23 if a child is enrolled full-time in college, university, vocational school, or trade school. The payment would be made to the person responsible for raising the children, and the amount would be set by the court.
Impact
The bill amends section 706-646 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which governs restitution in criminal cases, by adding a new category of restitution tied to first-degree negligent homicide involving impaired driving. It would make child-support-like financial assistance a mandatory restitution component in those cases, alongside existing restitution categories such as property loss, medical expenses, funeral costs, and lost earnings. The measure also clarifies that restitution amounts are to fully reimburse victims for losses and preserves existing rules on payment timing and collection while the defendant is in custody. The bill is set to take effect on July 1, 2050, and would apply prospectively rather than to already matured rights, penalties, or pending proceedings.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It passed the Senate Transportation and Culture and the Arts Committee unanimously, 4-0, with amendments, and later received a report adoption and second reading in the Senate before referral to the Judiciary Committee. The lack of recorded opposition in the provided materials indicates broad support for the bill’s underlying goal of helping families of DUI homicide victims.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether criminal restitution should be expanded to cover long-term child-rearing expenses in addition to traditional victim losses. Supporters appear to view the measure as a way to address a gap in current law, where the death of a parent or guardian can leave children without financial support. Potential concerns, though not reflected in recorded opposition here, could include the scope of the obligation, how courts would calculate support, the burden on defendants, and whether a restitution order is the appropriate mechanism for what resembles ongoing child support. The bill’s narrow application to first-degree negligent homicide involving DUI limits the controversy to a specific class of cases.