Death Penalty, Victim Families, and the Closure Myth

Introduction: A Divisive Issue in American Criminal Justice

The death penalty is one of the most divisive issues in the American criminal justice system. Although many polls suggest that a majority of Americans support its use, it faces strong opposition from those who argue that it is unfair for the state to deprive an individual of life, that it is applied in a racially biased manner, that it falls disproportionately on defendants who cannot afford their own counsel, and that it is fundamentally unjust because mistaken executions are irrevocable and no adequate reparations can ever be made. These concerns were serious enough that the United States Supreme Court instituted a moratorium on the death penalty during the 1970s, and, even after it was eventually overturned, dozens of court cases questioning its legitimacy are filed each year.

There is little indication that the debate will ever fully dissolve. Popular films such as The Green Mile and Dead Man Walking serve to remind the public that the issues surrounding the death penalty involve real people — the killer, the victim, and the victim's family — and that abstract policy arguments carry profound human consequences.

The Complexity of Death Penalty Arguments

The difficulty of the debate often comes down to a clash between abstract ethical frameworks and the lived experience of those directly connected to a death-penalty case. This combination makes the issue far more complex than a simple conflict between competing theories of jurisprudence. For example, the death penalty is frequently challenged on the grounds that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited under the United States Constitution. Certain methods of execution — the electric chair, in particular — have been singled out as inhumane, and critics argue that such forms should be discontinued entirely rather than permitted to continue.

The human dimensions of death-penalty cases are often overshadowed, however, by debates over deterrence. Some studies suggest that high-profile executions may function as a short-term deterrent to violent crime, although crime rates appear to rebound after such a pause — a kind of "bounce" effect. Other research finds no demonstrable deterrence effect at all. Even setting these arguments aside, the debate typically returns to moral and human claims: whether the death penalty is necessary to sustain a valid system of retributive punishment, and whether it provides meaningful closure to communities and to the families of victims.

Victims' Families and the Question of Closure

In nearly all discussions of the death penalty, it is striking how consistently the conversation centers on the rights of the convicted killer and how rarely the feelings of the victim's family receive serious attention. Apart from the victim who has been deprived of life, few people suffer more from a murder than those who loved the victim — people who must live with that loss and search for some form of understanding. While pro-death-penalty rhetoric frequently invokes the idea that execution satisfies the vengeful feelings of the victim's family, the actual attitudes of these families are far more varied and complicated.

Do victims' families view the death penalty as a just and appropriate response? Do they experience doubt about its moral rightness? And what is the overall psychological effect of the process on them? Moreover, many states where capital punishment is legal allow the victim's family to sit in a viewing area and witness the execution. What is that experience actually like? Does it produce a sense of closure for those who choose to attend, and how many families make that choice at all? Do those who witness the execution continue to feel the same way afterward, or do they begin to experience remorse or a renewed sense of loss?

Far greater attention must be devoted to answering these questions — and specifically to determining whether death-chamber viewings are genuinely beneficial for victims' families or whether they cause psychological harm that contradicts the stated purpose of allowing such viewings in the first place.

Psychological Effects of Witnessing Executions

Some critics argue that allowing families to witness executions is not beneficial and is at least as likely to cause lasting psychological damage — including post-traumatic stress disorder — as it is to provide relief. One researcher who studied this question conducted an investigation of 21 journalists permitted to witness a public execution in 1994 and found severely damaging results:

"These men and women were displaying many of the reactions usually associated with acute stress. They had difficulty managing the emotions that the execution aroused. More than half of our sample said they felt distant from their own emotions, a third reported that they felt 'confused and disoriented,' 60% were 'estranged or detached from other people,' and more than half said they tried to 'avoid thoughts or feelings about the execution.' One-third reported feeling 'despair or hopelessness,' and 20% felt 'uncontrollable and excessive grief.' I happened to speak to the wife of one of them some six months later. When I asked how her husband was doing, she replied: 'He is a basket case. If he ever covers another execution, we're getting a divorce.'" (Spiegel)

Spiegel acknowledges that none of the journalists in his study were related to the victim of the man executed. Nevertheless, he argues that the findings are applicable to victims' families as well. Indeed, it seems even more likely that family members — who will already have been experiencing intense emotional and psychological stress following the death of their loved one — will suffer a greater degree of psychological trauma from witnessing an execution, precisely because they enter the experience in an already fragile state. In this context, rather than providing closure, viewing the execution may only deepen the grief and stress that has accumulated since the murder.

Conclusion

The claim that the death penalty and execution viewings provide closure to victims' families is difficult to sustain in light of the evidence. Victims' families hold deeply divergent views — from intense desires for retributive confrontation to quiet acknowledgment that no execution can restore what was lost. The psychological research on witnessing executions suggests significant potential for harm, and the testimony of families connected to high-profile cases confirms that closure is rarely as simple or as certain as pro-death-penalty rhetoric implies. When combined with Justice Blackmun's conclusion that the entire process is too arbitrary to be administered fairly, and with growing international condemnation of American capital punishment, the case for maintaining the status quo becomes increasingly hard to defend on principled grounds.

Bibliography

Carlson, Margaret. "Don't Give Him the Satisfaction." Time Magazine. April 22, 2003. Retrieved November 19, 2003, from

Shapiro, Bruce. "Dead Reckoning." The Nation. August 6, 2001. Retrieved November 18, 2003, from

Sheril, Robert. "Death Trip: The American Way of Execution." The Nation. January 8, 2001. Retrieved November 18, 2003, from

Spiegel, David. "Closure? The Execution Was Just the Start." The Washington Post. Sunday, April 29, 2001, p. B03.

"U.S. Death Penalty: Victims Seize the High Ground." UNESCO Courier. Retrieved November 12, 2003, from