This may sound insensitive, but I don't see how this is any more or less morally wrong than stealing money from anyone else. Stealing is stealing, and this sick kid isn't any more of a victim than any other person. He's still a victim, he's just a victim who happens to be sick. People don't make huge news stories and offer to donate money to ordinary (non-sick) people who get robbed. If some guy living down by the James River Bridge gets mugged no one offers to help him out or send him money. As a human interest story, sick children may be more interesting, but as thieves these people are just as morally reprehensible regardless of who is robbed. It's just really sad that this child's unrelated health problems are what focus the attention on the crime committed here. This is why people in slums and ghettos complain that no one cares or notices when someone gets killed, but it's a multi-precinct task force investigation when someone in the rich neighborhood gets killed. It's the same thing here, the victim's situation is completely shifting people's perceptions of morality and legal punishment.

The slime that robbed this kid should get nailed to the wall not matter what, I just don't care who their victim was.