Why So Many?

I was listening to The Connection this morning on the radio. The topic was whether convicted felons should be able to vote. One of their guest speakers, John Lott, said that he didn't think someone should be able to vote if they "commit a murder, or are convicted of multiple rapes, or commit a robbery".

Excuse me?! Why is one robbery sufficient, but when it comes to rape one isn't enough? And why are people "convicted of" rape, but they "commit" murder and robbery? The wording implies that rape is not something that one actually does, but merely something that one gets punished for. Lest you think I'm picking on this guy for a momentary lack of tact, let me assure you that he said these things several times (in fact it was quite annoying the way he would respond to nearly any question by giving exactly the same answer -- clearly he was a highly experienced politician). At one point he said "you can argue whether it should be after three rapes, or two...". So it seems clear to me that he actually thinks that one robbery is worse than one rape.

After about five minutes of this, I had to change the channel. If you're interested in hearing it for yourself, it should air again tonight at 8pm on 90.9 FM in Boston, or you can listen to it online.