If-clause is not subjunctive even though the main clause is.?

Question

With the explosion of telecommunications in our modern world, we now have more TV channels than ever before, including some which broadcast only news, 24 hours a day, from all corners of the planet. In the not-too-distant past, if a boy in Hokkaido killed his parents, it would have been big news in his area but probably not in Kyushu. By contrast, now such a crime would surely be reported nationwide and perhaps in some other countries, as well.


(1) if a boy had killed his parents, it would have been big news
(2) if a boy killed his parents, it would have been big news

Which would be better? Don't you think (2) isn't consistent in that the main clause is subctive but the if-clause is not.

Answer 1

To keep what's called sequence of tenses correct, the actions must be in ascending time;

If a boy HAD killed....would HAVE been big news
Past Perfect leads to Perfect

If a boy KILLED....it IS big news
Past leads to Present

If a boy KILLS... it WILL BE big news
Present leads to Future

Since the news must happen after the killing, the tense for the verb with news must always be at least one "step ahead" of the verb with killing.

However, subjunctive never comes into it. There is nothing in subjunctive mood anywhere in either sentence.

Answer 2

I agree with you. (1) sounds better to me. In (2) the tenses seem mixed up...as though the if-clause were referring to the present while the main clause is referring to the past.

Answer 3

(1) is grammatically correct.
(2) should read "If a boy killed his parents, it would be big news." in order to have logical agreement of tenses.