The Denton Record-Chronicle took the position on Monday, July 31st, that Susan Smith had received the appropriate sentence for her crime. The editorial did not appear to be against capital punishment per se (which is fortunate, since the one the next day justified the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima), but if this woman was not worthy of death, then who is? Let’s consider the writer’s reasons for agreeing with the jury.
“Killing Susan Smith would not have brought the boys back” (all quotations are from page 4A). Has anyone ever argued that capital punishment should be used in an effort to restore the lives of the victims? Surely, no sane person would think such; so what is the purpose of such a statement, if not to always avoid the use of the death penalty?
“It would have been vengeance, pure and simple, and that is not what the death penalty should be used for.” First of all, how does the editorial writer know that the jury’s motive, had they chosen the death penalty, would have sprung from vengeance? Does he mean that such a sentence is always indicative of vengeance? If so, then he has indicted even God, who authorized it (Gen. 9:5-6). Although punishment can result from vengeance, it can also be a matter of retribution.
“Had she committed the crime in Texas and been tried here, one of the questions the jury would have had to answer would have been whether she was a continuing threat to society,” which the writer did not view her as. Now what exactly is behind this peculiar law? Is the public supposed to distinguish between different types of killers? Are professional “hit men” more worthy of the death penalty than those who just kill off family members? That’s logical–in a strange way: the idea (we conjecture) is that most of us have a finite set of family members where as “hit men” could continue on endlessly. It’s true that Susan Smith has now run out of children to kill just as the Menendez brothers have run out of parents. Therefore, society is safe from them. Great, let’s be sure to communicate this message to everyone: “You are guaranteed life imprisonment rather than the death penalty until you use up your family member exemptions.”
The title of this editorial is “Susan Smith Will Have To Live With Her Actions,” and in the fourth paragraph this sentiment is repeated: “Those 30 years will be terrible if she contemplates the reality of what she did.” If it hasn’t struck her by now, 30 years will probably not make much of a dent, either. But she knew that it was wrong before. That’s why she planned the whole sorry scenario to make herself look like a grieving mother–when all the time she had cold-bloodedly calculated everything. Otherwise, she would have just killed the tykes and looked surprised when she was arrested.
“Her appearance, as a helpless young girl with an innocent demeanor, no doubt was in her favor. She just didn’t come across as a vicious killer.” When will people ever learn not to judge by the appearance? In the final analysis, we ought to know that appearances can be deceptive. Demons can look like angels (2 Cor. 11:13-15). And it does not matter what a person says; it is what they do. Talk is not irrelevant, but actions are much more indicative of the heart than speech. That’s why in court trials we ought to go by the evidence presented, not how guilty or innocent the defendant looks.
“Perhaps she got the worst sentence possible after all,” is the conclusion of the editorial; it’s an extension of the preceding thought. But perhaps she didn’t get the worst sentence–this is only a guess, isn’t it? Speculation. Why is the editor concerned about whether or not she got the “worst” sentence? After all, will 30 years in prison bring back the two boys? And which is the worst sentence for society: the death penalty, or 30 years to life in the penitentiary?
Should Capital Punishment Ever Be Used?
Whoever wrote this editorial seems to contradict himself. The first paragraph reads: “For killing her two small sons she deserved whatever punishment the jury decided to hand out.” That would appear to include the death penalty, wouldn’t it? But then we are told that putting Susan Smith to death would be an act of vengeance (and what is keeping her in the slammer for 30 years and hoping that it is the worst penalty, pray tell?).
Furthermore, if the jury would have decided to end Susan Smith’s life, they would have been “bloodthirsty in their decision.” Spare us, please. Locking her in a car and pushing it into a lake might be considered bloodthirsty. Rescuing her from such a death just in the nick of time and then repeating the process might be considered an act of vengeance. But judging a woman who murdered two innocent children to be worthy of death is neither. If capital punishment cannot be used for a crime as heinous as this one, then when could it ever be used?
After the flood, God set forth this principle: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). Furthermore, one of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Pr. 6:17). Even in the midst of Josiah’s great restoration, God determined to destroy Jerusalem “because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him” (2 Kings 23:26). Among Manasseh’s other sins, he “shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (2 Kings 21:16).
They are innocent who are put to death for a crime they did not commit. Also innocent and unworthy of death are children–Susan Smith’s two sons. The civil government had the right to take her life (Rom 13:4)–and should have.