so it seems logical to punish the same outcome with different motivation
In that case, shouldn’t the law be against causing children significant and unnessasary distress/anxiety/fear? Like, if I were to start the Church of Street Safety and say that running into oncoming traffic might get you sent to Traffic Hell, which is “bad”, should that be considered child psychological abuse? Like you said, the motivations aren’t the important part, the actions/outcome are, so the religion (or lack thereof for that matter) shouldn’t be the deciding factor, the damage caused by the parents should be.
I think so, yes, that sounds like a better approach.
I guess the problem in Japan’s case is that there’s a particular cult that’s been causing a whole lot of harm, so through the law they’re aiming at that type of organisations specifically.
In that case, shouldn’t the law be against causing children significant and unnessasary distress/anxiety/fear? Like, if I were to start the Church of Street Safety and say that running into oncoming traffic might get you sent to Traffic Hell, which is “bad”, should that be considered child psychological abuse? Like you said, the motivations aren’t the important part, the actions/outcome are, so the religion (or lack thereof for that matter) shouldn’t be the deciding factor, the damage caused by the parents should be.
I think so, yes, that sounds like a better approach.
I guess the problem in Japan’s case is that there’s a particular cult that’s been causing a whole lot of harm, so through the law they’re aiming at that type of organisations specifically.