Susan Smith, notorious for the 1994 drowning of her two young sons, Michael and Alexander, was denied parole in November 2023 after serving 30 years of her life sentence. Her parole denial stemmed from a disciplinary infraction within the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) for unauthorized communication with a documentary filmmaker, violating prison regulations. The incident involved Smith engaging in discussions about a potential documentary, including details of her crime and payment for her participation. This infraction resulted in the suspension of her communication privileges, including the use of her phone and tablet. This incident highlighted the ongoing conflict between Smith’s desire for public engagement and the restrictions placed upon her by her incarceration.
Weeks before the disciplinary action and subsequent parole denial, recorded prison phone calls reveal Smith’s seemingly contradictory stance on media engagement. In a conversation with an unidentified male, she discussed receiving letters from media outlets seeking interviews, including one from a woman representing a national organization and another from an individual in California. Smith claimed to have discarded the letters and expressed disinterest in engaging with the media, stating she wouldn’t talk even if permitted. This apparent reluctance to speak publicly clashes sharply with her later actions involving the filmmaker.
Smith’s conversations with the filmmaker, as detailed in the incident report, extended beyond mere interview discussions. They delved into the specifics of her crime, including the contents of her car when it entered the lake, and her initial plan to jump from a bridge with her sons before one of them awoke. This in-depth discussion of her crime and her willingness to share contact information for family, friends, and even victims, including her ex-husband, demonstrated a clear intent to collaborate on a project that would bring her story back into the public eye. The fact that the filmmaker deposited money into Smith’s prison account further suggests a transactional element to their communication, potentially contradicting her earlier claims of disinterest.
The SCDC prohibits inmates from conducting interviews, both in person and over the phone, though written correspondence is allowed. Smith’s actions in communicating with the filmmaker not only violated this policy but also directly contributed to her parole denial. The parole board cited the gravity of her crimes and her institutional disciplinary record as the reasons for their decision. This highlights the severity of Smith’s original crime and the ramifications of her continued attempts to control the narrative surrounding it.
During her parole hearing, Smith expressed remorse for her actions, acknowledging the horror of her crime and apologizing for the pain she inflicted. She claimed fear as a motivating factor and lamented her inability to face the consequences of her actions. Despite her emotional pleas, the parole board remained unconvinced, ultimately denying her release.
The case of Susan Smith continues to captivate public attention decades later. Her recent parole denial underscores the enduring impact of her horrific crime and the ongoing debate surrounding her motivations and potential for rehabilitation. The conflicting accounts of her desire for, or aversion to, media attention, as evidenced by her prison calls and her interactions with the filmmaker, further complicates public perception of this complex case. The denial of parole effectively silences, at least for the foreseeable future, any further attempts by Smith to control or profit from the narrative of her crime.
