BackWhy reform rapists?
Rape is the worst form of human perversion that exists; the idea that you can violate a woman's body makes you irredeemable
Premium
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav has said something incredible about women being raped: Boys make mistakes, why hang them?
Yes, in a public rally, in the midst of elections, he told the world that rape is a mistake that boys can make and they should not be hanged for it. It is as if he is equating rape to boys breaking the glass window of a house while playing cricket.
How convoluted must his thought process be that he did not think twice about making an outrageous remark about such a grave offence? How confident must he be about never having to face the consequences of saying something so shameful? How certain must he be of the tolerance his voters have for him equating the worst kind of gender violence to a childish folly and the fact that it doesn’t merit dire consequences?
There has been much outrage about Yadav’s statements. And rightfully so.
However, Yadav’s comments are not the first time that bizarre logic has been given against death penalty for rapists. Just that in other instances all sorts of intellectual gymnastics and poorly employed sophistication has been used.
Sample these reactions to the death penalty awarded in the Mumbai Shakti Mills gang-rape case:
Kavita Krishnan, a leader of the All India Progressive Women’s Association: “To say that reform is not possible because these people are intrinsically evil, why did you not catch them on the first instance and then attempt to reform them? When no intent has been to reform, I think this is not a judicial argument and not a moral argument and not a feminist argument."
I think these penalty provisions need to be reconsidered," said Renuka Singh, a sociologist at Jawaharlal Nehru University. “The purpose is to reform these people, not eliminate them."
Majlis founder Flavia Agnes says the term "repeat offenders" should be applied only to those who have committed a second rape after completing their sentence for the first offence. "The 20-year-olds, in this case, were not "hardened criminals" and should not be treated like terrorists," she said.
In an opinion piece in The Indian Express Agnes says, “There is nothing for the victim, they have not provided her with anything as relief. They are giving the death penalty as if it’s for their own sake." The operative word in these statements is reform.
Reform the men who thought it alright to get together with other men and rape a woman repeatedly.
Reform the men who did the same thing in the same place twice.
Reform the men who took photographs of the girl they raped and threatened to release it on social media if she reported the rape?
So, reforming the rapist in this case would be a moral argument?
Why should such men be given the luxury of reform? Why?
On Twitter, in response to someone asking her if not providing the death penalty for rape was trivializing it, Krishnan said:
Try and leave your stubborn idea that death penalty=justice for rape victims.
For some reason, reform of rapists is a feminist notion?
The fact that such elaborate defenses are being thought up to defend the indefensible is deeply worrying.
Rape is the worst form of human perversion that exists. The idea that you can violate a woman’s body makes you irredeemable. It is a sick sentiment which revels in taking pleasure in making the woman suffer. These men deserve no chance for reform. This is not a patriarchal idea. It is utter disgust at a man’s self-assurance that he has the ability and therefore the right to touch a woman without her consent.
Coming to Agnes’ statement about the “20-year-olds" not being “hardened criminals". Really? Men who raped an 18-year-old just a month back in a similar fashion are not hardened criminals? Who are “hardened criminals" then?
And how is reference to “20-year-olds" different from Yadav’s use of boys as a justification for rape?
Agnes and Krishnan’s statement about repeat offenders implies that because these men were not caught in the first instance and because the state never made any effort to reform them it now has no business in punishing them with death. The argument is also that since that since they never finished their first sentence, the clause awarding death penalty for repeated offences doesn’t hold.
It is alarming that the concept of justice when dealing with rape is somehow being twisted into a discussion on reform rather than commensurate punishment. Interestingly, those against death penalty are yet to come up with what is a “just" punishment for rape except to say that certainty of punishment is a deterrent rather than severity.
“There is nothing in it for the victim." Death penalty gives nothing to the survivor but life imprisonment or reform does? The survivor would or should care about her rapist getting a chance to reform himself?
Without a strand of doubt, the state has to make available all possible support to ensure that the rape survivor is able to cope with the aftermath of being at the receiving end of such brutality. But in what way does this mean that rape doesn’t merit the death penalty?
Why is it not obvious to those who claim to be upholding the rights of women that there is no justification for rape? Why should the background of the rapist, the survivor, the caste, the deterrence value come into play at all? For eg, one of the arguments for reconsidering the death penalty in this case was that these men came from backgrounds which made them succumb to a “life of crime":
Their background — living in slums and pavements, with no jobs prospects and, most importantly, no education at all — would tell you that they have been raised in a cruel and callous environment, with no possibility of improvement. These are not excuses for a life of crime, but are explanations why some young men succumb to it.
But that does not mean that those who are not from such backgrounds are less likely to rape. Or that the severity of punishment in their case should be higher than when “three young boys, one of them barely 18, from impoverished backgrounds" rapes a woman.
Granted that the state is at fault for not improving the lives of millions but that is not a defence for rape.
Lastly, demanding death penalty for rape does not mean that one celebrates death or revels in blood thirst, as is so often proclaimed by the “compassion brigade". The violence of the crime, if proven, demands that it be met with death and nothing less.
There is no reason to make examples about rape cases to make a larger so called “humanitarian" point about what the state can and cannot do. The failure of the state lies in its inability to put in place systems that prevent such acts of violence. If the unfortunate incident does come to pass it should not be used as the mechanism that can prevent further crimes. It needs to be dealt with (swiftly) as a criminal case and nothing else. It should not get mangled with misplaced notions of “reform" and “justice".
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
