First, the premise of wanting compensation from this person's children is that they have inherited his inheritance.
The purpose of this man's killing is to vent his anger, and he holds the idea of mutual destruction. So after killing someone, he didn't hesitate and jumped into the river to commit suicide. For the families of the victims, their pain is understandable. In any case, violence was not the solution to the problem, but he adopted it. Although he was exempted from criminal responsibility, his life ended.
What he did was an injury to his children. Because his children will be criticized for his behavior, especially in the village, unless they move away. These are all criticisms that children accept morally and have nothing to do with the law. If you want your children to pay compensation, you have to bear civil liability.
The civil liability they can bear is to inherit the inheritance of the offender. This man is so impulsive that his family may not inherit much. In this case, it is unlikely that they will be compensated. Even if it is compensation, how to divide the compensation items is also a problem. 7 deaths and 2 injuries, how to distribute them?
This man's behavior is really hateful. He must not be exempted from civil liability, but how to compensate becomes a problem. If he has no assets, then compensation becomes empty talk. If there is an inheritance, the inheritor may not be his children, but his wife. Then, it was his wife who was executed, not his children.
Two, his children did not inherit, willing to pay compensation, it is also possible.
This person's children, who did not inherit his inheritance, can be compensated if they want. The purpose of this is not to reduce the punishment of the perpetrators, but to make their conscience get by. After all, these people are neighbors. Distant relatives are better than close neighbors. We have something to discuss, there is no need to be so cruel.
If they are willing, I believe the families of these victims are also very happy. After all, their families are gone, so they can get some compensation and feel better psychologically. Their children do this in order to lead a normal life in the village. After all, people are awesome.
If his children don't live in the village and they don't live in the village, their willingness to pay compensation may be very low. Some people say that if his wife lives in the village, she will also be pointed at. His children may take his wife away and live with them, and the possibility of asking them for compensation will be very low.
Some people say that since he still has a wife, he should claim compensation from her. This is ok, because his wife is the biggest heir to his estate (even if it is small). For the wife, there may be a civil lawsuit, but there is no need for the children to face it. Because they didn't inherit his legacy!
If his children have a conscience, they can also get compensation. Of course, we can't kidnap them morally, because legally speaking, they really have no obligation to compensate the families of the victims. We can morally blame the abuser, but we can't morally blame his children, because they didn't make mistakes, let alone break the law.
Third, their children, with or without compensation, cannot be morally attacked.
His children have no legal obligation, but do they have moral obligation? No, either. Father's debt, son's compensation, this is the previous habit, habit can not become law, let alone replace law. We saw this man's behavior, which is really hateful. However, these behaviors have nothing to do with his children.
His children didn't know he was going to do such a thing. If they know, they should stop him. He committed atrocities, and we should punish him according to law. But he has committed suicide by throwing himself into the river, and his criminal responsibility is exempted. There is no lack of civil liability. If the victim's family files a lawsuit against him, the court will accept it.
As for his children, there is no law unless they have assistance. According to the information provided by the police, his children are not involved, so they have no obligation to bear these civil liabilities unless they inherit the inheritance of the perpetrator. The perpetrator's behavior was not premeditated. So he didn't leave a will.
There is little chance that his children will inherit the inheritance, so there is little possibility of compensation for them. For them, we can only believe that they are good people and are willing to take the initiative to compensate. If they don't do this, it's not their fault. Because, in the event, they did not appear.
Those who condemn others morally should reflect. If you are the abuser's family and you don't inherit the abuser's property, will you compensate? If not, then don't ask others. We should not condemn the children of the perpetrators morally, but wait and see. What do you think of this? Welcome to leave a message