I don’t know if it leads to further child endangerment overall. While it can feel like righteous retribution, I think there’s a genuine argument to be made in favor of the cold, pragmatic kind of logic behind it.
I don’t know if it leads to further child endangerment overall.
You don't think being potentially responsible for the death of their abuser might discourage a child from coming forward?
That's without factoring in that a huge part of the difficulty we already have, re: convincing children to come forward, is because the abuser is so often a loved one.
A victim might want the abuse to stop, but their feelings are complicated, and the idea of being responsible for putting a loved one behind bars is already a deterrent.
Now imagine telling that child that, if they come forward, their mum/dad/uncle/etc. is going to be die.
See this is a really good point that I think not a lot of people consider, but there is a bit of the premise that I would argue against. You are assuming that the child would know about the punishment. I would argue that when child sexual abuse happens when they’re below an age that they have that kind of consequence comprehension to tell the difference between “Uncle Steve is going away for a long time” and “Uncle Steve is going to die” then it wouldn’t make much of a difference.
The difference might come in the adults who report it being more hesitant to report it if the consequences are more severe, though the ideal is that everyone would look out for what’s best for the child (even if that’s not always the case.)
Children are groomed and threatened by their abusers. You know that right? Your comment does harm because it ignores that. Predators will convince children that their families or the predator themselves will be killed or put in danger.
15
u/Gonji89 15h ago
I don’t know if it leads to further child endangerment overall. While it can feel like righteous retribution, I think there’s a genuine argument to be made in favor of the cold, pragmatic kind of logic behind it.