The assump­tion that all vic­tims’ fam­i­lies favor the death penal­ty is so entrenched that fam­i­lies who oppose the death penal­ty some­times expe­ri­ence dis­crim­i­na­tion with­in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem from pros­e­cu­tors, judges, or court-appoint­ed vic­tims’ advocates.”

There is a com­mon­ly held belief that use of the death penal­ty is always sup­port­ed by the friends and fam­i­lies who have lost loved ones to vio­lence. Prosecutors and elect­ed offi­cials often argue that only the death penal­ty will bring them the clo­sure and jus­tice they deserve. Family mem­bers are invit­ed to wit­ness exe­cu­tions in cap­i­tal cas­es on the the­o­ry that doing so will help meet their needs for ret­ri­bu­tion and closure. 

While this feel­ing may be true for some, oth­ers feel dif­fer­ent­ly, includ­ing some who oppose the death penal­ty in all circumstances. 

Studies sug­gest use of the death penal­ty does not always bring fam­i­lies the clo­sure they seek and may actu­al­ly inter­fere with the heal­ing process. In addi­tion, the lengthy nature of cap­i­tal cas­es, the emo­tion­al dif­fi­cul­ty of griev­ing after an act of vio­lence, and the lack of fund­ing for vic­tim ser­vices often leave vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers with­out the sup­port they need.

Fact: Capital cas­es are lengthy, and phys­i­cal­ly and emo­tion­al­ly exhaust­ing for many vic­tims’ families. 

Capital cas­es are always lengthy, giv­en the pro­ce­dur­al safe­guards in the sys­tem intend­ed to pro­tect indi­vid­u­als from wrong­ful con­vic­tion, and the process can slow the heal­ing process for griev­ing fam­i­ly mem­bers. Marilyn Armour, the Director of the Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue, has worked with homi­cide sur­vivors for over two decades. She and fel­low researcher Mark Umbreit pub­lished a study in 2012 com­par­ing how vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers cope with loss in Texas, a death penal­ty state, and Minnesota, which does not have the death penal­ty. Their research inter­viewed fam­i­ly mem­bers at dif­fer­ent stages after the ini­tial sen­tence and found that par­tic­i­pants from Minnesota showed a marked decrease in grief symp­toms over time, unlike those from Texas. The Minnesota fam­i­lies were able to move on soon­er, as they did not have to repeat­ed­ly relive their trau­ma through the lengthy appeals process, tes­ti­fy­ing about their loss and fac­ing the defen­dant in court.

Professors Amour and Umbreit iden­ti­fied the crit­i­cal dynam­ic” at play in vic­tim recov­ery as the con­trol sur­vivors felt they had over the process of get­ting to the end.” Victims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers in Minnesota report­ed feel­ing greater con­trol over their heal­ing process like­ly because the appeals process was suc­cess­ful, pre­dictable, and com­plet­ed with­in two years after con­vic­tion[.]” In con­trast, the study not­ed that the appeals process in Texas was drawn out, elu­sive, delayed, and unpre­dictable.” That gen­er­at­ed lay­ers of injus­tice, pow­er­less­ness, and in some instances, despair.” Both study groups expe­ri­enced high lev­els of grief and sor­row, but Minnesotans, no longer hav­ing to deal with the mur­der­er, its out­come, or the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem,” had the abil­i­ty and the ener­gy need­ed for personal healing.”

Fact: Executions do not mean clo­sure for all vic­tims’ family members.

In the lat­est devel­op­ments of the antic­i­pat­ed Idaho mur­der tri­al of Bryan Kohberger, pros­e­cu­tors who nego­ti­at­ed a plea deal, remov­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of the death penal­ty, explained their deci­sion to the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies. According to the Idaho Statesman, a let­ter sent to the fam­i­lies stat­ed that the plea was the most just out­come, as it would spare them from the uncer­tain­ty of decades of post-con­vic­tion appeals.” Among the four affect­ed fam­i­lies, one fam­i­ly was vocal about the plea deal. The fam­i­ly of Kaylee Goncalves wrote on Facebook, We are beyond furi­ous at the state of Idaho. They have failed us.”

While pros­e­cu­tors in the Kohberger case even­tu­al­ly agreed to dis­miss the death penal­ty, this approach is not con­sis­tent across all cas­es. In oth­er cas­es, pros­e­cu­tors argue that a death sen­tence is the only sen­tence which can pro­vide clo­sure to the victim’s fam­i­ly. During the Texas tri­al of Paul Storey, for exam­ple, pros­e­cu­tors lied to the jury and said that “[i]t should go with­out say­ing that all of Jonas [Cherry’s] fam­i­ly and every­one who loved him believe the death penal­ty was appro­pri­ate.” In real­i­ty, Mr. Cherry’s par­ents opposed the death penal­ty and even­tu­al­ly released a video sup­port­ing Mr. Storey’s clemen­cy request, say­ing: Paul Storey’s exe­cu­tion will not bring our son back.”

While vic­tims’ fam­i­lies hold dif­fer­ent views on the death penal­ty, some reject the idea that com­plete clo­sure can ever be achieved after a loss to vio­lence. As the pre­vi­ous exam­ples show, grief is very per­son­al and fam­i­lies process it in var­ied ways. A 2009 study by Nancy Berns explored the notion of clo­sure in the con­text of the death penal­ty and found that for many fam­i­ly mem­bers of the vic­tims, clo­sure is often elu­sive. For the study, Professor Berns reviewed stud­ies on death penal­ty rhetoric and the soci­ol­o­gy of emo­tion. Professor Berns notes many fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims argue that there is no such thing as clo­sure and there­fore dis­dain the word.” She explains how the emo­tion­al effect of exe­cu­tions on victim’s fam­i­ly mem­bers is not straight­for­ward and leaves some with emo­tive dis­so­nance – they do not feel the clo­sure promised … it still hurts” or they come away even angrier.” 

Fact: Capital cas­es divert resources that could be used to sup­port vic­tims’ family members. 

Implementing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment requires more resources, which could be allo­cat­ed to sup­port the needs of vic­tims and their fam­i­lies instead. The Ohio Attorney General esti­mat­ed in 2023 that the extra cost of impos­ing the death penal­ty on the 128 inmates cur­rent­ly on Death Row might range between $128 mil­lion to $384 mil­lion.” By way of con­trast, in 2022, the Ohio leg­is­la­ture appro­pri­at­ed $9 mil­lion in 2024 and $7 mil­lion in 2025 for Ohio’s Crime Victim Compensation Program. The study esti­mat­ed in 2023 that the extra cost of impos­ing the death penal­ty on the 128 inmates (sic) cur­rent­ly on Death Row might range between $128 mil­lion to $384 mil­lion.” In 2022, the Ohio leg­is­la­ture appro­pri­at­ed $9 mil­lion in 2024 and $7 mil­lion in 2025 for Ohio’s Crime Victim Compensation Program.

Imagine all the time, ener­gy, and resources we spend on the death penal­ty sys­tem instead going toward pro­grams that help address the trau­ma of pover­ty and neglect – to tru­ly improve lives. Or imag­ine show­ing the peo­ple who endure and sur­vive vio­lence – dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly peo­ple of col­or – that our lives mat­ter and that we deserve healing.”

Sharlette Evans, whose three-year-old son was killed in a dri­ve-by shoot­ing in 1995.

At one time I believed that the death penal­ty would ben­e­fit peo­ple like my moth­er and me, but in real­i­ty noth­ing could be fur­ther from the truth … We should take the mon­ey that we waste on the death penal­ty and put it toward bet­ter equip­ping [the police], or toward oth­er pro­grams that actu­al­ly reduce crime… It is impor­tant that there is fund­ing to pro­vide ser­vices that will help griev­ing and trau­ma­tized fam­i­lies like ours.”

Neely Goen, whose father Conroy O’Brien, a Kansas State Trooper, was killed in the line of duty in 1978.

Citation Guide