now that we are clear that your implication of it being children as in any little child was at best misleading, now that we are clear that it wasn't for disobedience as you tried to claim, and now that we are clear that it was a charge that had to be proven and accepted by the authorities; let's get down to the facts of the culture. there were no prisons as we have today. a family ruined could lead to a village or a city ruined. if this son was nothing more than a rebellious criminal who would eventually cause the death of innocent people and could destroy the economy of a city, yes, they would take measures to protect themselves. one way or another he would be gone. God was providing a way for them to protect themselves.Your apologetic personal opinion erased and rightfully so as biblical fan fiction. Your son is still your child yes? Yes. And of they are unruly you are to snatch them up, being them to the elders and have them stoned to death.
This is the command of your savage, dark god.
Unruly son? Stone him to death.
i like your choice of calling him an unruly son. once again you try to prejudice the discussion by using an inaccurate word.