I'd say they're equally painful, as if you kill the child the child dies and the parents suffer, and if you kill the parent the parent dies and the child suffers. However killing the child is slightly more evil because the child has no chance of defending themselves.
2006-09-26 08:13:31 · 11 answers · asked by Homie from the Street 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In legal terms, it does not matter the relationship or if you kill a child vs. an adult. What it really comes down to is the "mens rea" this is the intent of the accused. If you commit an intentional killing with malice and for thought, you are guilty of murder 1, if you do the same, but your intent was not as malicious it is murder 2. If you kill somebody, while committing a violent felony it is usually considered murder 2, and falls under the felony murder rule, while manslaughter does not involve the malice element. The bottom line is what were you thinking seconds before you killed the person.
Attorney Goldstein
www.goldsteinandclegglaw.com
2006-09-26 08:21:20 · answer #1 · answered by goldsteinandclegglaw 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both are equally HEINOUS. The child's death is devastating for the parent but the parents death is devastating to the child, siblings, loves and everyone is someone's child. An grown person has impacted more people. Therefore more people would be affected, a child is cherished more deeply by fewer people.
2006-09-26 08:24:31 · answer #2 · answered by LAUGHING MAGPIE 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A grown up child or a small child? I guess it doesn't make too much of a difference. It's worse to kill the child. Children are supposed to outlive their parents; it's the way the world works. It's much more tragic when parents outlast their children. Parents feel guilt over not protecting their children; children don't feel as much guilt over the death of their parents.
2006-09-26 08:22:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
interior the eyes of the regulation? My guess may well be that an a discern killing a toddler might carry a larger punishement because of the fact maximum adults may well be held responsible for their movements. With toddlers it may be argued that, because of the fact they're so youthful/impressionable, they did not be attentive to what they have been doing. basically a guess. i in my opinion don't be attentive to.
2016-10-01 09:36:38 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
killing someones child is definitely worse. there is nothing worse than a child dying before the parent. yes, both are bad, but ultimately the child is far more disturbing.
2006-09-26 08:23:44 · answer #5 · answered by stavs 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither is 'worse'. Either would be a tragic event, and something the survivor would never get over. But why are you asking this question? Is this purely philosophical? If so, what is it doing on the law and ethics page? Placing it where you have makes it seem as though you are contemplating one or the other.
2006-09-26 08:17:37 · answer #6 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killing someones anyone is horrible, but what kind of evil monster would it take to kill an innocent child. Even crime fighters belive it is extremly hanis to kill a child.
2006-09-26 08:18:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the child, because a child has more of a potential to become something great while the parent has usually decided on his or her life.
both however are truely terrible things.
2006-09-26 08:18:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
killing anyone is bad
2006-09-26 08:22:44 · answer #9 · answered by Mom 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
both equally wrong
2006-09-26 08:28:14 · answer #10 · answered by traveller 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋