Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 29, 1990 TAG: 9004300231
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court added one more small package to the burden. The death penalty, already of dubious value, is today a bit more dubious.
On the surface, the ruling was simple and straightforward: If a condemned murderer wishes to be put to death without appellate review of his case, the high court said, so be it.
Many states, including Virginia, provide for automatic reviews of capital cases in any event. But some, including Arkansas, do not. And in Arkansas, the court said, convicted mass murderer R. Gene Simmons need not have his case reviewed if he doesn't want it reviewed.
Simmons himself hardly commands sympathy. In the Christmas season of 1987, he mowed down his wife, three sons, four daughters, a son-in-law, a daughter-in-law, four grandchildren and two acquaintances in and near the small town of Russellville. Evidence enough of some kind of insanity, a layman might say, but also evidence enough of a spirit so viciously debased that it does not deserve to live.
That seems not terribly far from what Simmons, too, believes. He is not appealing his death sentence, he has said, because he wants to die to end "the torture and suffering in me."
But why should Simmons' wishes be given so much weight? Why should the state of Arkansas be so willing to act as agent for his suicide?
Even defenders of the death penalty concede the lack of evidence of its efficacy as a deterrent to murder. But is it sometimes an incentive to murder? If capital punishment for some is a way to commit suicide, it is a tragically cumbersome one. You must first kill someone else - in this instance, 16 other people.
Well, then, retribution: The purpose of capital punishment, goes the argument, is to provide society an outlet for venting its rage.
But is it punishment to whip a masochist? Is it vengeance to put to death someone who wants to die?
And why should the court be so cavalier about the principle of appellate review of capital cases?
However ambiguous the idea of capital punishment, its practice is absolute. The death penalty is the final penalty; if mistakenly imposed, it cannot be undone.
If society must be in the business of putting people to death, should not society take ultimate care to ensure that no legal stone is left unturned, that no mistake is made?
Forget Simmons. Is this not necessary for society's own self-respect?
by CNB