Capital Punishment: Providing Closure or Causing Problems? In the movie Dead Man Walking, Earl Delacroix, the father of a murder victim, is seen at the funeral of the murderer, Matthew Poncelet, after his execution. While there, he says that he hasn’t found the peace he thought he would have after Matthew was executed and that his heart was still filled with hatred (Dead Man Walking.) This is the case for many families, capital punishment may give the impression that the murder victim’s family gains closure from the execution of the murderer, but that is rarely the case; even years after the execution has taken place, some family members of the victim suffer from unresolved grief and the murderer’s family is also affected in a negative manner. Capital Punishment is often viewed as the “right” option to put the families out of their pain and suffering, but in many cases, it’s just not effective in providing closure for the families and might make things worse; therefore, it should not be a valid reason for execution. Capital Punishment as Closure The promise of closure seems like an illusion more than a reality; the idea of it suffers from the assumption that the murder victims’ families’ desire that the offender be executed in order to feel liberated from grief and all the pain that the criminal has caused. According to Berns, closure is something many families of victims’ pursue, but do not often achieve and it has become a protruding cultural narrative for defining the needs of the victims’ and also the broader concept of justice. Those that are for capital punishment and those who are oppose it don’t really have a true definition for the word and argue whether it exists or not. There are many arguments on how to achieve c... ... middle of paper ... .... The term “closure” in the legal context does not have a true definition because most of the people define it in their own words; the families are lead to believe that with the death penalty, all of their problems will go away and that they will experience a sense of relief and the majority don’t. That is why most families that have lost a family member to murder are against capital punishment simply because it fails in accomplishing the promise of closure. The victims’ family are not the only ones that undergo suffering; so does the family of the murderer and they feel about the same as the victims’ family when it comes to losing someone they love dearly; although, little is known of them and they are seen as unpleasant people at times. So is closure really a good enough “excuse” to execute a human being or does it bring with it more problems to deal with?
Capital punishment is known as a death penalty. It is a law that was set by a States government to execute a person who has committed a crime that needs to be punished by death ("Capital Punishment."). From a victim or the victim’s family aspect, capital punishment is set to serve justice because the person needs to be punished for their actions. Referring to Polly Klaas case, Mark Klaas a father of Polly Klaas a teenage girl who was kidnapped and murdered, mentioned that he found closure and justice when the judge chose the death penalty for his daughter 's murderer (Aliferis). From people’s aspect, it is set for them to remember that for every action there is a reaction. Capital punishment is set because it is justice and it also brings closure to the victim’s
Although the death penalty alone cannot bring back the life of those who have been murdered, it can serve as ultimate justice for the victims and their families. The deterrence of the death penalty can save lives. While opinions abound on both sides of the fence, in the use of the death penalty on juveniles, no one can argue with the fact that the voices of those murdered cannot be heard. Juveniles may not have fully developed brains, as Raeburn argues, but this is not an adequate excuse to dismiss the death penalty. American society cannot afford to babysit murderers, nor can they rehabilitate them. The end of the innocence begins when an innocent life is taken, and the sanctity of life is held defenseless.
The death penalty provides the victim’s families closure.[5] While the victim themselves are not alive to gain any closure from the situation, the execution of the perpetrator does bring a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal.
throughout the whole world--the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain on the people; for otherwise they will all be regarded as participants in the murder as a public violation of justice.” (Rachels, 2010)
The Death penalty provides closure for the victims because then they are not haunted by the fact that their loved ones have died and that the person that did it will be faced with the same outcome, death. According to jones (2014)“In U.S, 63%
Throughout the ages, death penalty has always been a controversial topic and triggered numerous insightful discussion. In Kroll’s Unquiet Death of Robert Harris, the writer employs pathos as an appeal throughout the whole article in order to convince the audiences that death penalty is “something indescribably ugly” and “nakedly barbaric”. While Mencken makes use of ethos and logos and builds his arguments in a more constructive and effective way to prove that death penalty is necessary and should exist in the social system.
Using capital punishment would put an end to the killer’s suffering, and let him leave the world peacefully. With the death penalty in place, the victim’s family can finally get closure. Families that have been through the intense experience of losing a loved one might call for lex talionis, or eye for an eye. They could believe that the killer took their loved one from them and the only acceptable recourse would be to take the murderer’s life. This retaliation for the family might be the most important reason to instill the death penalty in today’s
In Darkly Dreaming Dexter, Jeff Lindsay presents Dexter Morgan, a serial killer who kills only criminals, and in doing so, generates controversy about what constitutes morally justifiable behaviour. Lindsay’s protagonist blurs the lines between right and wrong, exposes the inherent flaws of justice systems, and ultimately forces the reader to evaluate his or her principles. While many North Americans believe that murder is unquestionably evil, I disagree on the basis that this stance overlooks the need to take into account the circumstances of the situation—such as who the victim is, who has committed the murder, and why he or she has done so—which are crucial factors in passing moral judgement on an offender’s actions. I argue that Dexter is correct to channel his sociopathy into something positive—disposing of individuals who have committed atrocious crimes in a vigilante fashion—because North American justice systems are incredibly flawed, as they allow heinous criminals to walk free too often due to prevailing social biases, systematic loopholes, and lack of manpower. Dexter compensates for this defect because, unlike justice systems, he eliminates criminals without prejudice towards the offender or the victim, operates on a straightforward basis free of political rigmarole, and achieves results in an efficient fashion, all of which make North American society a safer place, save lives of would-be victims, and spare their families mental anguish. Ultimately, this reveals that the line between what is right and wrong is not as clear as one might initially think, as well as the troubling notion that North American institutional structures are in need of reconstruction if readers are more confident in justice delivered by a ...
Many people who are against capital punishment are only thinking of the criminal and how cruel it is for them. But, shouldn't we think of the families that are broken apart now because of the merciless acts of these criminals. Think of Susan Smith, how she knowingly drove her car off into a lake with her two children strapped to the seats. Think of how they must have felt as the cold water started to fill the cabin of the car, and then ultimately drown them. Barbaric is exactly the word I would use to describe her actions. But yet, the jury rejected the death penalty and chose a life sentence instead. Mr. Smith, the father of the two children, broken up from the ruling said "Me and my family are disappointed that the death penalty was not the verdict, but it wasn't our choice. They returned a verdict they thought w...
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
The Death Penalty should be discontinued to the families, human rights, and statistics. The families of the victim and the family of the one, who committed the crime, have no closure at all. The death penalty is killing a human for being convicted of a terrible crime one family may think its right but both suffer by their lost ones. “Although true closure is never really possible for the families, studies have shown that the continual process, along with the returning to court for many years, force families to confront the gruesome details of the crime many times over, making it impossible to get on with their lives. As difficult as that is the question is weather the victims needs are met effectively by killing someone else and causing another family grief and pain as well as adding to the cycle of violence.” (Progress) As both families do not want to see each other because they all have pain and hate for one another. They both relive the last memories of their loved one and they can’t help but cry and stare at the pictures they were once happy in. The families both have sadness when its their loved ones birthday. If the victim is married or have kids, their kids suffer and the husband/wife suffer as well. Although the families will never get there loved one back they still suffer on what had happen. Both families blame one another for having to take flowers, to their dead family member or visit their family member in a cemetery because of what happen. None of them is truly happy that they lost a family member. The families miss the person who seemed so happy, and also know that they are in a better place watching over them. Although the families aren’t happy about losing them, but are relieved to know that nothing else can hurt them. As one family feels sorry for the other family, there could be the family that doesn’t care what happens but wants everyone to suffer the way they are suffering about the tragic death of one family member.
...the pleasure with minimal amount of pain would be to continue to use capital punishment. With the therapeutic aspect of closure for victims, it provides the necessary outcome for the victims to be able to move on from the situation.
Eaton, Judy, Tony Christensen. “Closure and its myths: Victims’ families, the death penalty, and the closure argument.” International Review of Victimology, Vol 20(3).Sep, 2014. : pp. 327-343.
Secondly, many believe that capital punishment is right because of the justice given to the victim’s family. These family members feel l...
Proponents of the death penalty are right to argue that capital punishment does provide a sense of “closure” to those who are faced with the tragedy of losing a loved one due to homicide, but they exaggerate when they claim that this is the only means by which murderers receive just punishment for their crimes. Advocates of the death penalty fail to recognize that there are alternative methods – such as psychotherapy – that are able to replace the barbaric method of the death penalty.