Hippy Dave points us to this article on the death penalty, from a victim's family member...

But I don’t want him executed. That would be revenge, not justice. [...] I shudder at the idea of government imitating this killer by killing him. All the talk about the “closure” given by an execution is a myth. Heather is gone. Her chair is forever empty, and killing her murderer will not change that. [...] And I don’t want his family to be forced into grief and sorrow. Why create another family of another slaying victim?

The pro-death-penalty argument which normally gains the most sympathy for me is the one that looks at the feelings and wishes of the victims' loved ones. The loss can never be healed, but can they find closure with the execution of the perpetrator? My guess is that many, if not most, family members of victims feel they can - at least until the execution takes place and they learn whether or not they can from experience. Not all, to be very sure, but many.

But I look at the statement from Ms. Wright, and I notice that much of what she says is true of all families of murder victims. The closure hoped for from the death penalty is one that comes from the (quite) understandable motivation of revenge - not an ethical standard. Executing the murderer really will leave that chair empty, that victim gone forever. That empty chair, that knowledge of a loved one suffering, those are the real harms, and execution does precisely nothing to undo them. And, no matter whether there is some "closure" for the victim's family, there is the much greater negative result for antoher family - a family innocent of any wrongdoing apart from having loved the wrong person. If there is some "closure" that comes from execution, is it worth the price of creating a whole new family who will carry the same burden that the victim's family carries?

::

Posted by smijer at May 25, 2006 07:24 AM