damning
(note to self: check!)
Yes, he should, but how does that justify sentencing that screws the child without changing the crime situation? If some kid never sees his dad because Dad's a murderer, or committed three armed robberies in a three strikes state, then that kid is collateral damage from the exact thing society should be doing. But that's not what we're talking about here.
I mean, you wouldn't say "The insurance company shouldn't have to pay for that kid's care in the burn ward. Her Mom should have thought about this before taking up smoking." So why would you say the state shouldn't care about the result of a nonviolent offender's kid getting screwed over? And why would we continue on any course of crime policy that does nothing to reduce crime?