There is a lot of talk about the possible execution of a child rapist in Pennsylvania. Here is one link http://www.newsweek.com/id/131773 but my favorite is this one http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24115142/

I was incredibly angry when I read these two articles. Still am. Not because child rape isn't an absolutely horrible crime--it is, but because the way it is talked about, the logic behind this move to execute these child rapists completely devalues the horror of rape committed against adults. Observe one of my favorite quotes, "It is so evil. There is no justification for it," he said. "This isn't a heat-of-passion killing. It's not about money." What does that mean, there is no justification for it? That there is justification for raping an adult? Why do serial rapists not receive the same punishment as serial murderers?

I am not actually pro death penalty. I don't think we are careful enough in our justice system to justify killing people. I'm also not pro letting pedophiles and child rapists go free...ever. Mostly because in the case of repeat offenders it seems that rehabilitation isn't possible. So as I remark that these articles make me angry it isn't because I find the crime less than heinous or because I think we should kill everyone; it is because as I read these articles it felt like a slap in the face. Yes, raping an adult is different because an adult is better equipped to deal with it, but rape is still akin to torture. I would argue that to the death. I would also ask, in the instance of the second article, would people have cared as much if he were raping little girls instead of little boys? I can't help but wonder...

It is the rhetoric here I take issue with, along with the blood thirsty attitude of the people interviewed. That they were seriously considering castrating him bothers me significantly. I don't believe the place of the country is to wreak revenge--I don't think that is justice. My good friend once said something to me I find particularly applicable as I think about this, "sometimes you have to be worthy of what you are fighting for" or something like that. What that means is, if we commit an atrocity to revenge an atrocity, are we really morally superior? Is it ethically right to take an eye for an eye?

Do not mistake me for saying we shouldn't put people in jail or punish them for their crimes. One of my many irritations with right-wing fanatics (other than their existence as fanatics) is that they claim every argument for mercy is simply the weak-willed idiocy of liberals. We aren't capable of demanding justice. We aren't capable of "doing what needs to be done." I'm capable of a lot of things. Many of them would surprise most people, and many of them would qualify as horrific. Do not assume to know what I am and am not capable of. The point here is what we, as a country/society/culture, should do. We have a constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment, obviously castration (for the moment) falls under that, but what does our willingness to torture a prisoner, not because he contains information or some other utilitarian need but, only because we hate him and take pleasure in his pain, say? If you take pleasure in someone else's pain willfully, calmly, and gleefully--is that okay?

Finally, while I would agree that crimes against children are more heinous, I would not agree it is because their status as children makes them somehow more precious. I don't buy into the "possibilities" argument in regards to human life. I find crimes against children more heinous because it is a more egregious abuse of power by those committing the crime; I also find them horrible because there is rarely (I say rarely because Damian from the Omen might be running around somewhere) a situation where violence of any sort, sexual or otherwise, is justified. In that regard the quote above is correct.

But I will refuse to diminish the atrociousness of rape itself, committed against a person of any gender an age, by saying that some rapes are more evil than others. There are rapes that arise out of miscommunication and rapes that arise out of violence. There are rapes that happen in the "heat of the moment" and those that are planned out. I would say there are as many variations of rape as there are murder. But a serial rapist, one who observes, plans, and attacks systematically time and time again, does not become more horrific and deserving of the death penalty, in my opinion, because he is attacking children instead of adults.

Both crimes are horrific and inexcusable; doesn't it seem odd to argue that one is more evil than the other?