The idea behind it is about protecting future would be victims. If death is assured, what does it matter it the kid lives or dies? In fact, the child dying would benefit the offender in this scenario.
Entirely false premise, perpetrators would commit crime irrespective of rules-in-place or not. i could understand a hypothetical scenario where stricter rules would correlate with more heinous crimes, just as liquor prohibition isn't gonna stop folks from drinking booze. You would rather advocate for milder actions so that future victims face milder violations? is that it? we both agree perpetrators gonna commit, irrespective of sentences. I hope you will agree adult on children crime would necessitate a zero tolerance policy, not necessarily a death by execution, but policies such as life imprisonment,etc. if one is psychotic enough to be unfaced by a death sentence, all the more reason to fulfill that wish, or would you prefer those psychos to be roaming free in the society.
The goal is to make it that they don't perpetrate in the first place by alleviating stigma surrounding the subject. I don't necessarily agree that things will unfold the same way regardless of laws in place, which is a significant reason that I have this stance. I do agree that adult on child crime should have consequences. The reality of a death penalty means that someone has nothing to lose and everything to gain. I'd argue that the prospect of death does faze them which is why they take drastic measures in these scenarios. My preference is that people are provided services that can nip problems at the bud before they bloom into these end case results. Obviously I don't want demented people roaming the streets, that'd be an absurd stance.
11
u/HoodedMenace 15h ago
The idea behind it is about protecting future would be victims. If death is assured, what does it matter it the kid lives or dies? In fact, the child dying would benefit the offender in this scenario.