In the past decade or so, the Republican Party has been able to take a stronghold on the "moral indignation" card. Whether the issue is abortion or gay marriage, the Grand Old Party always stands firmly on a high horse of their idea of virtue; they paint themselves as the last bastion of traditional American values in American culture.
Now, imagine how such a moral party would react if it were discovered that two camp counselors had abused the children entrusted to their care by putting brooms and flashlights into the children's rectums. Imagine that this activity occurred to 18 children, and that it was sometimes used as a "punishment" when campers were too messy, and that sometimes it was for no reason at all.
Imagine that in addition to the rectal violation, three of the campers were choked to the point of passing out.
Ask yourself if the issue of whether these men had "sexual intent" would figure into your disgust at their actions. Does it matter if the boys were wearing swimsuits when they were held down and rectally violated, or if they were naked?
Now, imagine that the punishment for the counselors will involve them apologizing, and receiving, at most, two years behind bars (although prosecutors will recommend little or no time in jail). They would not be registered as sex offenders, and the plea bargains they'd sign would describe their actions as "non-dangerous and non-repetitive offenses."
Finally, imagine if, coincidentally, one of the perpetrators were none other than Clifton Bennett, the son of the Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett.
The actions of his son bear no reflection on the elder Bennett's right to claim a platform based on values or morality. However, the lack of punishment for these two young men smells of the worst sort of hypocrisy.
Imagine if it were the boys' parents who were shoving broomsticks into their children's rectums whenever they felt like they were misbehaving. Imagine if it were a Catholic priest, or a football coach. Would prosecutors then recommend five days in jail and an apology? It was, after all, just a broomstick shoved up a defenseless child's butt, while they were wearing clothes!
Pretend for a second that those children were young girls and not young boys. Would it be excused as hazing then? Would it be a joke that went just a little bit too far, or would there be a public outcry?
And, keep in mind that if a 17-year-old has consensual sex with a 20-year-old in Arizona, that 20-year-old could be convicted of a felony and forced to not only serve jail time, but to be registered as a sex offender.
The mitigating circumstances offered in this case are simply that Bennett and co-defendant Kyle Wheeler are good kids who simply let a little hazing get out of hand. The Arizona Republic even went out of its way to point out that poor Clifton Bennett wouldn't be able to go on his mission with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if he were to have a felony conviction on his record.
In the meantime, 18 children are having a hard time sleeping at night, and will probably have a hard time ever trusting an authority figure again.
I'm not implying that Bennett and Wheeler should be punished with a decade in jail or some other incredibly harsh punishment. However, by offering these two men plea bargains, they will never have to face a jury and let their peers decide whether they deserve to have the book thrown at them. At the very least, this should be a cause for us to examine our laws.
Instead, Yavapai County's prosecuting attorney, James Landis, gets to decide that justice means Bennett and Wheeler get five days in jail in compensation for the trauma they enacted on the boys entrusted to them.
And judging by the lack of reaction from anyone in our government, this doesn't seem like a bad idea to anyone else.
Ben Horowitz is a journalism junior. Reach him at benjamin.horowitz@asu.edu.
