Why Don Opposes Capital Rape|
April 19, 2013
Don is angry with me. He cannot understand why I support punishing rapists with
death while simultaneously defending the rights of the unborn. He accuses me of
applying double standards, promoting hypocrisy, and of being "inconsistent." But
I am perfectly consistent in my beliefs. And, truth be known, so is Don.
The reason so many people are unfairly labeled as "inconsistent" is because the
term "double standard" is applied in such a haphazard fashion. People are
actually guilty of applying a double standard when they treat two identical
things differently. On the other hand, they are not applying a double standard
when they treat two different things differently. They are just applying common
It’s pretty easy to see that I am not applying a double standard in opposing
abortion and supporting the death penalty. An unborn child is not the same thing
as a convicted murderer. In fact, no unborn child has ever committed murder.
Forgive me for going out on a limb, here. But we are dealing with different
Of course, opposition to abortion and support of capital punishment is perfectly
consistent with respect for innocent life. Abortion must be stopped because it
takes an innocent life. Murderers must be stopped because they take innocent
lives. And nothing deters like capital punishment. No executed man has ever
become a recidivist.
Those liberals who claim the lack of a "general deterrence" effect of capital
punishment are to be dismissed as smug hypocrites. General deterrence refers to
the discouragement of would-be offenders – as opposed to those already convicted
of crimes. Of course, general deterrence is not possible when the appellate
process extends over a period of decades. The would-be killer is not deterred
because he knows that punishment would not swiftly follow his offense. That is
due to the almost endless appeals in capital cases. These endless appeals are
caused by liberals who block any and all efforts to reform the process.
Therefore, they lack the moral authority to protest the condition they have
Of course, my desire to extend the death penalty to cover first degree rape does
not introduce inconsistency into my worldview. The convicted rapist is not an
innocent human being. Additionally, I want to insure that if the victim becomes
pregnant, she can kill someone in order to assuage the memory of the rape.
Presently, too many people would prefer that she kill the innocent child. I
would rather spare the innocent child and kill the guilty rapist. See how I keep
coming back to a concern for saving innocent life? You may disagree with me. But
at least I’m consistent.
Of course, Don thinks I’m crazy. And there's a reason for that. He likes having
sex with a lot of women. In fact, besides smoking pot and bombing my Facebook
page, there's nothing he enjoys more than "getting a little strange" - as he
likes to say.
Don's sex life is relevant to the discussion because it is the only reason he
supports unrestricted abortion. He has an otterbox to protect his iPhone. But he
won't wear a condom to protect himself during sex. If the woman won't assume the
responsibility he shirks, he must rely on abortion as a back-up plan. Otherwise
there would be a lot of little Dons running around - and one less Don Juan
hitting the bars looking for some "strange."
Of course, Don consistently employs the rape exception in abortion debates
because the issue makes pro-lifers seem calloused towards women. He also uses
the rape victims in debates so he can keep using women for sex after the debate
is over. I always agree with him when he says a woman has a right to terminate a
life in order to help assuage the painful memory of rape. We just disagree on
which life should be terminated. Don thinks she should have a doctor kill the
baby by dismemberment. I think she should have a prison doctor kill the rapist
with a lethal injection - after a fair trial, of course.
Don fights back hard when I say rape should be a capital crime. But he's just
being consistent. The more he sleeps around, the greater the likelihood he will
be charged with rape. Therefore, it is in his best interest to promote leniency
in the law of rape - the kind of leniency he is unwilling to extend to the
My friend Don says we can’t legislate morality. What he really means is that we
shouldn't legislate morality because it would interfere with his sex life. His
reasoning is strangely consistent. It is also consistently selfish.
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina
Wilmington and author of
Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting
Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand, due out in