Saudi Arabia is crucifying a child rapist. International Rights Groups think that Saudi Arabia is goning too far. I, myself, wonder, from time to time, if it can be said that a person effectively defeats his claim to a right to life by the evil that he commits. In Saudi Arabia the person who is being crucified is a person who raped not 1 but 5 children; and he left 1 of those children in the desert to die. The rapist is 22 years old.
Since reading the story—indeed, several versions of the story—I have asked myself over and over again: What in fact is so wrong with putting to death this rapist of 5 children? In what sense is killing him barbaric or an instance of lowering ourselves to his despicable immoral level? For one thing, we are not talking about someone who merely committed a robbery, which in and of itself is no trivial thing. Nor again are we talking about the raping of an adult. While there is nothing at all acceptable about raping an adult person, there are nonetheless numerous reasons for holding that raping a child is even worse. Raping a child is to take an act which is already utterly despicable, namely rape, and to render that very despicable act even more heinous.
So what exactly is so wrong with putting to death this rapist of 5 children? Well, the argument cannot be that if killing is wrong, then it is wrong no matter what. Certainly, no one really accepts that line of thought, as the case of self-defense makes abundantly clear. Few, if any, think that we may not kill in self-defense.
The principle we hold, then, is not simply that killing is wrong, but rather that the killing of innocent people is wrong. Now some wrongs reveal none other than a flagrant disrespect for life. More to the point, the wrongs would not be committed but for the fact that the individual committing them has a complete disregard for the victim’s humanity. Just as there can be a measure of justice among thieves, it is possible for even a hardened criminal to reveal some sensitivity to the humanity of the person he is wronging. There are worse and worse and yet worse ways to what is unquestionably wrong.
The death penalty for a mere robbery makes no sense to me. But anyone who cannot see the vast moral difference between a mere robbery, on the one hand, and the raping of 5 children, on the other, surely has fundamental moral and psychological problems.
If it is obvious that this 22-year old rapist of 5 children deserves as sentence of life in prison, then there is the following question that presents itself: Why should taxpayers bear the costs of maintaining such a person in prison until he dies? Exactly how does the argument go that respect for life requires this of society? And how exactly does the argument go that a person deserves to be kept alive no matter how heinous the wrong is that he committed.
In a marvelous essay entitled Lettre ouverte aux Américains pour l’abolition de la peine de mort by Benjamin Menasce and Michel Taube, the issue of the arbitrary and unequal application of the death penalty in the United States is very poignantly raised. No state-backed punishment should be applied arbitrary and unequally; and no do doubt this applies above all to the death penalty.
So if the law is that anyone who has raped 5 children should be put to death, and this is law is applied in a non-arbitrary manner, what exactly would be wrong with putting such individuals to death? In what way would not putting such individuals to death serve to underwrite respect for human life?
We already know from the case of self-defense that not any instance of killing constitutes having disrespect for life. And surely we can move beyond self-defense in this regard. Imagine that someone is brutally attacking your dear old beloved grandmother; and either you kill the attacker or watch your dear old beloved grandmother be killed by that person. Is there really anyone who would not kill the attacker in order to save the life of her or his dear old grandmother? I really do not think so. Is there anyone who thinks that killing the attacker would constitute a lack of respect for human life? Again: I do not think so. Yet, what we have in this instance of killing the attacker in order to save the life of grandmother is surely not a case of self-defense.
So when we have someone who has raped 5 children and left one in the desert to die, how exactly is disrespect for life being shown merely in virtue of putting that person to death? Why, indeed, is it not the other way around? Just how much life is respected is being shown by putting to death the rapist of 5 children? Why? Because the damage which that person has done to the children, at least collectively, is so heinous that keeping that person alive might very well be construed as diminishing the moral worth of the children.
Whatever else is true, equal respect for all human life cannot possibly mean that we treat all human life in the same way, as the case of punishment alone shows. Is the following thesis indefensible? An individual can show such a disregard for life that no money whatsoever should be spent keeping person alive. This might hold particularly for repeated offensives of a certain kind. Indeed, this might hold only for repeated instances of a certain kind.
For me, raping 5 children readily crosses that moral threshold. Human Rights Groups correctly point out that, for instance, putting someone to death for robbery or even cutting off the person’s hands constitutes a disrespect for human life. And it is plausible to argue that crucifixion does too, since that constitutes making a public display out of the punishment of death—perhaps even a form of amusement.
So, while I disagree with decision in Saudi Arabia to crucify the man who raped 5 children, I can see no good reason at all why putting him to death is not morally acceptable vis-à-vis keeping him alive in prison until he dies. Many have asserted, but no one has shown, that respect for life requires keeping a person alive no matter how heinous a crime she or he has committed.
I agree that executing someone for this type of crime isn’t deplorable in the least, but I don’t think the grandmother case (where the reasonable person would excuse killing even though it’s not self-defense) is parallel. There is a difference between killing someone as the act is taking place, and killing after the fact. If someone were to kill his grandmother’s attacker as she was being attacked, there would be other factors contributing to his response – namely, adrenaline, instinct, the question of her death or survival, the impact of witnessing the act first-hand, and maybe others. It’s a “crime of passion” I suppose. Child rape is the worst act imaginable, but because the damage is done, executing him serves slightly different purposes – to prevent future acts, and to make an example out of him. Probably no one cares that he will be dead – but it seems that the decision to kill him isn’t really anyone’s call to make. Further, since when is killing someone the ultimate punishment? Many criminals accept death willingly as a way out. It’s just too easy. Furthermore, the United States spends more money in some cases upholding the death penalty as a means of punishment than it does keeping these people alive. New York for example, spends millions of dollars per year on the death penalty, which it doesn’t even implement. I’m not saying I want a child rapist alive, but I it’s not our job to “play God” and send someone to their ultimate sentence.