One of the arguments for harshly punishing “deadbeat dads” is to deter illegitimacy and unwanted pregnancies. The logic goes something like this:
If you make an example of enough men, it will deter men from impregnating those poor, helpless daughters of God and burdening the rest of us with the associated costs.
However, any game warden would see a monstrous flaw in this argument. The flaw is that it only takes a few males to impregnate the entire herd. As much as you punish the men, there will always be some that are too stupid, too careless or too wasted to heed the warning (and do you really want those guys to be the only fathers?).
In game management, controlling the population is a fairly simple matter. When there are too many deer, the state encourages people to hunt does. When there are few, does are off limits. It’s very effective, because fewer does means fewer fawns, whereas the number of bucks has far less impact on total fertility.
So, if you want to prevent single motherhood and associated social pathologies, you’ll get a lot more bang for your buck if you aim the disincentives at the females. Punish the men, and you’ll just get more of the same.
I’m sure there’s enough legal talent in our country to find innovative, female-targeted deterrents (and perhaps incentives) that are neither inhumane nor punitive toward existing children, so it’s time for our policymakers to get to work and deal with the problem.
