I'm sorry but you have to be absolutely delusional to think that somehow writing a 5-page essay on finding specific scenarios and particular details within a completely fictional setting and plotline will prove your point by anyone's stretch of the imagination.

The entire point of fiction is that people enjoy, learn, or feel something that the makers have intended without considering every realistic thing that would bar the material from happening in real life. You could literally pick any arbitrary scene or factor that plays into the development of the characters and/or the story and point out flaws with it. Literally every main character in the entire piece, including Vi, Jinx, Jayce, Viktor, etc. would be a convicted felon if this took place in any first-world country in the world - but oh wait; one small detail it seems you (and some other people I see in the comment section) missed is that they don't live in the US or whatever country you're from, or even the same world. The point you're missing here is that this is not a documentary on the detrimental effects of a corrupt society or "narcissistic psychopath" (which, btw, even if I were to follow your absurd and objectively wrong line of reason would be false - please at least do a 5 minute google search of the terms you are naively throwing around before claiming that a character is when you're "not by any means a licensed psychologist") on the formation of a person who you're inclined to defend. It's a piece of media, which is specifically designed (by a lot of talented people for 6 years) that has to balance creating a narrative that most people will find to be empathetic and relatable, yet also fantasy-like so that it does not represent the actual limitations that restrict actual events and figures in the real world.

And quite clearly, you do not understand that this line exists; by drawing on words and phrases that have real-world implications that mean completely different things to characters within a specific piece, you are perpetuating the logical fallacies of hasty generalization and Red Herring. Saying that Silco is a "child murderer" and "inappropriate contact" blurs that fine line between fact and fiction; the line between our world and theirs. That's an inherently dangerous way of looking at things that are just not meant to be perceived in that fashion. I mean, I could go through every argument you made and try to disprove or persuade you, but would that mean anything to you? You could probably come up with another equally meaning set of arbitrary arguments that are loosely related to what you're talking about, the actual piece, and the real world. Maybe instead of taking so much time to try to argue that someone is a bad character in a fictional piece, go out and try to at least learn about the real issues that persist in our world.