Are you suggesting that the case of Peter L. Andrews and R.B. will find a place in American history comparable to the one occupied by Leopold and Loeb? I should hope not. And the reason why the two cases cannot be compared, and why Rachel Peace's death has for all practical purposes already disappeared into the blackhole of public forgetfulness, are because the sheer volume of life negating obscenities committed daily in this country --- a Leopold and Loeb crime committed dozens of times a day --- presents an unsustainable burden to a public numbed to cruelty, and marks the distance we've traveled down the slippery slope into the culture of death.
The sanctity of human life was taken seriously when Leopold and Loeb were tried, and so the horrible crime caused a great sensation. It's a safe bet that Peter L. Andrews and R.B., along with millions of their contemporaries, have never once been asked by a parent or a teacher to connect in their minds the concept of sanctity with the concept of human life.
Among the most controversial ideas is that proposed by two
scholars, Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of
Chicago, and John Donohue III, a law professor at Stanford
University. Their recently published research shows a strong
correlation between the rise in the number of abortions since
the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973 and the drop in the crime
rate some 20 years later. By ending unwanted pregnancies,
they argue, women avoided raising potential criminals who
would now be entering their high-crime years.
Critics on both sides of the abortion issue have lambasted the
study. Anti-abortion groups object to the idea that terminating
pregnancies could have a positive impact on crime, while
pro-abortion groups dislike the racial overtones and aspect of
social control implied in the research. The scholars say they
are just trying to interpret the data as they see it.