People who rape children are probably the vilest creatures on this planet (if you ask me.) Sometimes, I question their very humanity. In fact, in my opinion, the only people deserving of the death penalty are those who hurt kids. Fry those sons-of-bitches up (yes, that’s probably my conservative roots talking, but I’m sorry, dear liberal friends, I’m not going to apologize for my views on the death penalty.)
But, like many, I wonder if perhaps our society doesn’t view the rape of men and women, or boys and girls, differently. Is it worse to rape a girl than it is to rape a boy? And, does it matter the gender of the rapist? For example, is it worse for a priest to rape a thirteen year old boy than for a thirty-something female teacher to rape him? Psychologically, is it more traumatic for the victim? Should that play a role in sentencing?
What prompted this post you may ask? I ran across an article this morning, about an 84 year old woman who raped an 11 year old boy. Her sentence? 36 month in prison. The really sick part of this story is that she was the child’s foster parent. I can’t help but wonder if the sentence would not have been greater if this was an 84 year old man who raped an 11 year old girl? In ohio, for example, a 33 year old man received a 15 year sentence for raping an 11 year old girl. Or, would it have been worse if an 84 year old man had raped an 11 year old boy? In another case, a man recieved a 20 year sentence for raping a boy under the age of 16.
Clearly, the sentencing guidelines for statutory rape crimes vary different in each state, and judges are often allowed discretion in sentencing, unless there is a statutory minimum sentence. For example, in this case, the court sentenced grandma to 36 months because she was old and had no prior criminal conviction. But I wonder -would the court’s benevolence have been extended if grandma was a man? Maybe. There was another case in which a judge sentenced a man to 60 days in jail for repeatedly raping a seven year old girl. However, after a tremendous outcry of public disapproval, the judge changed the sentence to 3 to 10 years.
Do women get off easier than men? For example, in Georgia, there have been several cases in the last few years where teenage boys were getting 10 year sentences for sleeping with their fourteen or fifteen year old girlfriends. How much more perverse is grandma’s crime, and yet she is only getting 36 months in jail?
One study has suggested that the difference between male and female sex crime sentencing is that generally the male crimes are more violent and are typically with younger victims. However, I wonder if there could be some other reasons. Do we still have paternalistic concerns about girls? Is it “worse” for a girl to lose her virginity or to be taken advantage of? Is the act of penetration worse in our minds? While we sometimes think that women and even sexualized teenage girls “asked for it,” do we also think, in the back of our minds, that men and boys can’t be raped by women? When we read articles about female teachers sleeping with thirteen year old boys do we view that differently than stories about male teachers sleeping with thirteen your old girls? Is the sexual double standard seeping into criminal sentencing? I don’t know… I’m really just asking here… Maybe the answer is no… Mary Kay Laterno, after all, received a seven year sentence….
Ok, so if it isn’t gender inequality, what’s the deal? Do we have a soft spot for older ladies? After all, surely grandma isn’t a violent criminal. Should she have to go to jail? This incident reminds me of a shocking case from criminal law, involving a 50 year old, female 7-11 clerk who shot a 15 year old girl in the back for allegedly trying to steal a bottle of orange juice. She got 5 years probation. The judge in that case stated that the light sentence was adequate because the woman was unlikely to commit another crime. The judge stated that “now was not the time for revenge.” Tell that to the little girl’s family.
Ultimately, proper sentencing in cases like this may come down to your theory on punishment – do we send people to jail to punish them or to deter future crime? If grandma is never going to commit another crime, does she need to go to jail? Or, does the very act she committed deserve punishment in and of itself? The deterrence/utilitarian model may be a more objective method of administering criminal sentences. If we take the retributive approach and decide that someone needs to go to jail solely to be punished for their actions, then the courts and legislatures will have to make value judgments about what is “bad” and what is “worse.” This could lead to teenagers going to jail for 10 years for consensual sex and grandma getting 36 months for willfully raping her foster kid. On the other hand, the deterrence model may lead to the very same result.
My theory – people should only be punished for hurting other people. Use a deterrence/utilitarian type model for victimless crimes (drug use, shoplifting, etc.) But, when a person is hurt by another’s actions, deterrence should not play a role in limiting sentencing. I don’t care if grandma or the 7-11 clerk are kind old ladies who will never commit another crime. They deserve to be punished for what they did to their victims. Victim should have a right to be vindicated, and when the state allows criminals to walk because of some deterrence rationalization, it fails those who have been hurt. And, when the state fails the innocent, it fails us all.
