March 28, 2006
Do death sentences really give victims relief?
Dahlia Lithwick in Slate:
The past few weeks have been rife with accusations of closure denied. The families of Slobodan Milosevic's tens of thousands of victims were ostensibly denied closure when he died before the conclusion of his war-crimes tribunal. Decisions over where to try exiled Liberian ruler Charles Taylor turn largely on how to afford closure to his victims. And the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks despaired that government misconduct had ended not only the prosecution of Zacharias Moussaoui but also their one chance at closure. "I felt like my heart had been ripped out," said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband died in the attack on the Pentagon. "I felt like my husband had been killed again."
The Moussaoui death-penalty trial has been touted by the government as a way to bring resolution to bereft families. Hundreds watch the proceedings on remote, closed-circuit televisions. Tens will testify about their losses. This will be their "day in court." Since John Ashcroft announced in 2002 that he'd seek the death penalty for Moussaoui to "carry out justice," the assumption has been that justice demands an execution. Ashcroft said something similar in 2001 when he decided that family members of the Oklahoma City bombing victims could witness the execution of Timothy McVeigh on closed-circuit television, insisting it would "meet their need for closure."
Why? What's the empirical basis for the government assumption that all, or even most, victims of terrible tragedy will find "closure" through protracted trials and executions?
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 01:06 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834b3dfd569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do death sentences really give victims relief?:
Comments
More to the point, even if every victim was guaranteed to thirst for revenge, the idea that our justice system exists to satisfy that desire flies in the face of the essence of our constitution and most of our settled law, which trade off the rights of the criminal (or innocent accused) against the interest of society *as a whole*. Even admitting that the victim's desire has any relevance is the first step in the descent back to barbarism.
Posted by: David | Mar 28, 2006 3:55:35 AM
"Even admitting that the victim's desire has any relevance is the first step in the descent back to barbarism."
Wow. I was just about to post that I agreed with you, when that statement gave me pause. Considering the victim is a step toward barbarism?
When someone commits a violent crime, they are not just committing it against society. They are committing it against a specific person. That person (or people) feels the greatest ramifications of the act. Desire for reciprocity is a very strong (and, I suspect, evolved) inclination among humans, and while I agree that the old "eye for an eye" standard is impermissable, it is a long stretch from that to saying that the desires of the victim (or victim's family) don't matter at all. That is its own kind of barbarism.
Even if every murderer were put to death, and this brought closure to the family of every person murdered, that is not a justification for the death penalty in a civilized society. True. However, consideration needs and desires of the victims' families is also a mark of civilization.
Posted by: Rillion | Mar 28, 2006 6:19:35 AM
I rarely read Slate anymore, thanks for reminding that Dahlia Lithwick is a good reason for doing so.
My brother was murdered. The observation that people touched by violent crimes react differently is borne out by my experience. Also that what we want to know is "why."
There were several teens involved in my brother's case. The trials were traumatic and would have been far more so for some in the family if any of them were capital cases.
I'm reasonably sure that the culprits were caught, but after the trials not really very sure what actually happened that early evening.
I don't think that David's observation that admitting "the victim's desires is a first step in the descent to barbarism" is right. But I do agree that the interests of society as a whole are paramount.
All of the family was interested to know more about what happened, but most of us were primarily concerned about society's interests as far as the trials went. That our justice system is fair and competent seems quite important in recovering from the tragedy of violent crime.
In our case the State came up short. There were errors in the case the State brought against the most culpable and he was released after a re-trial. It's hard to be philosophical about that. But it was the knowledge beforehand of how imperfect our justice system is that would have made a capital trial so difficult for most of us.
Before my brother's murder I was opposed to the death penalty. Now I'm evenmore sure capital punishment doesn't serve justice well.
Posted by: John Powers | Mar 28, 2006 2:13:50 PM
Rillion, thank you for calling me on language that was too general to indicate what I really believe. There are many ways we can try to consider victims within the criminal justice system without institutionalizing the revenge motive. We could do more to provide counseling, and restitution where possible. But I do believe that the punishment has got to be the one thing that the victims just cannot be given input into. If there are other things that can be done to soften the effect of that, I'm all for doing them.
John, I hope I could remain as objective and thoughtful as you have in the face of what you went through. I'm not sure I could, and I know many can't, which is what drove me to this position.
Posted by: David | Mar 29, 2006 3:31:06 AM
Post a comment