White and Spenkelink: A look at justice in action

It seemed an ironic twist of fate. In the same week...

One man, Dan White, made headlines because he was convicted of a crime of killing, within a matter of minutes, two public figures in cold blood. As a result of his conviction, he was subject to a maximum of slightly less than eight years punishment.

One man, John Spenkelink, made headlines as he was put to death in the electric chair for allegedly killing a fellow drifter with a criminal record who reportedly had forced him to submit to a homosexual act.

White and Spenkelink were tied together in a fateful connection, and jointly illustrated the awful contrasts

Katherine L. Hatton's "Law Today" column takes issue with proponents of an Ohio death penalty law. Page 6.

of the human condition and the utter folly of our efforts to make sense and lawful order out of the persistent disorder of human behavior.

The background details are well known. Dan White was an advocate of law and order, a former police officer and fireman who was elected to the governing board of the city of San Francisco în 1977.

After a year on the board of supervisors, he found he couldn't support his wife and child on the salary, so he resigned. Shortly thereafter, with a pledge of assistance from his relatives, he sought reappointment.

When Mayor George Moscone refused to reappoint him, White went

to city hall to plead his case. He shot Moscone when he was still denied his wish. Immediately thereafter, he went to the office of supervisor Harvey Milk, an avowed homosexual, reportedly to ask why Milk had also opposed the reappointment. A moment later, White shot and killed Milk, too.

White admitted to the killings and turned himself in, along with the murder weapon. He said he had been "in a fog." The jury concluded that

Dr.

Walt

Menninger

delayed by various appeals until May 25, 1979, at which time Spenkelink became the first man in the United States executed against his will since 1967.

What does all this mean? That people with "good" records can murder other people and not be vulnerable to the same penalty as people with "bad" records? Perhaps.

That people with good attorneys, good legal representation, are likely to fare better in our criminal justice

Is there a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way to deal with murderous transgressions of people?

his behavior was impulsive and that he did not manifest sufficient evil intent to be convicted of "murder." Instead, he was guilty of "voluntary manslaughter.”

Not so in the case of John Spenkelink, who was a man of different character. Already a known criminal, he was a fugitive from a California prison in 1973. When traveling across the country, he picked up Joseph Syzmankiewicz, a fellow drifter and criminal. In a Tallahassee, Fla., motel room, Syzmankiewicz allegedly forced Spenkelink at gunpoint to submit to a homosexual act, and Spenkelink killed him.

As a result, a jury found Spenkelink guilty of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to death in the electric chair. The execution was

system Perhaps.

than those without?

That the death penalty, as in the. past, is likely to be carried out inconsistently, depending upon the state in which the crime occurs? Perhaps.

That there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to deal with murderous transgressions of people? I doubt it.

When someone has killed another, in malice or on impulse or whatever, he must be dealt with in a special manner. But I'm not convinced we have yet determined the best

manner.

And I am deeply troubled by the simplistic view that the best way to solve the problem is simply to "pull the switch!"

• Universal Press Syndicate