A recent op-ed in the Litchfield (Connecticut) News high­lights con­cerns about the death penal­ty as expressed by mur­der vic­tims’ fam­i­lies. Mary Healy and Jane Caron are social work pro­fes­sion­als who also expe­ri­enced a mur­der in their fam­i­lies. In their recent op-ed, they stat­ed that Connecticut’s death penal­ty does not suf­fi­cient­ly care for the needs of vic­tims: The prob­lem with the death penal­ty is that it main­tains a focus on the mur­der­er when the focus right­ly belongs with the peo­ple the mur­der­er has harmed. The mis­placed empha­sis is evi­dent by the fact that, while cru­cial vic­tims’ ser­vices and crime pre­ven­tion pro­grams are not fund­ed to their opti­mal lev­el, the state spends between $4 mil­lion to $7 mil­lion annu­al­ly on a death penal­ty sys­tem where the focus is pri­mar­i­ly on the mur­der­er.” The writ­ers fur­ther explained that mur­der vic­tims’ sur­vivors endure much pain dur­ing tri­al and appeals: Capital cas­es receive greater media atten­tion and increased pub­lic scruti­ny. When a death sen­tence is hand­ed out, to the pub­lic, it seems like the case is over and jus­tice’ has been served. However, this sen­tence sets into motion a decades-long process that the sur­vivors must con­tin­ue to live through. Being entrenched in a legal sys­tem can be harm­ful to any­one; to those suf­fer­ing from trau­mat­ic grief, the injury is com­pound­ed.” Healy and Caron con­clud­ed, The death penal­ty is not what vic­tims need. If we are seri­ous about car­ing for the needs of vic­tims, we will aban­don the pre­tense of the death penal­ty and work for real solu­tions.” Read full op-ed below.

–Update: Victims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers held a press con­fer­ence in Connecticut on February 29. To see video of the event, click here.

Time to elim­i­nate the death penalty?

We are inti­mate­ly acquaint­ed with homi­cide grief, each one of us hav­ing lost a cher­ished fam­i­ly mem­ber to mur­der. But our con­nec­tion to sur­vivors is also pro­fes­sion­al, with a doc­tor­ate and master’s degree in clin­i­cal social work, and more than 30 years each of clin­i­cal expe­ri­ence, we have devot­ed our pro­fes­sion­al lives to the alle­vi­a­tion of human suf­fer­ing, trau­ma, grief and loss.

As both homi­cide sur­vivors and pro­fes­sion­als who help those deal­ing with grief, we are less con­cerned with what is deserved by the mur­der­er than we are by what is deserved by the fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims. We believe that jus­tice is only served when the needs of those who have been harmed are met. The prob­lem with the death penal­ty is that it main­tains a focus on the mur­der­er when the focus right­ly belongs with the peo­ple the mur­der­er has harmed. The mis­placed empha­sis is evi­dent by the fact that, while cru­cial vic­tims’ ser­vices and crime pre­ven­tion pro­grams are not fund­ed to their opti­mal lev­el, the state spends between $4 mil­lion to $7 mil­lion annu­al­ly on a death penal­ty sys­tem where the focus is pri­mar­i­ly on the murderer.

However, there are many addi­tion­al costs to vic­tims because of our deci­sion to keep the death penal­ty on the books. The process a fam­i­ly mem­ber goes through in a cap­i­tal case is not ben­e­fi­cial to men­tal or emo­tion­al health. To start, cap­i­tal cas­es can cause addi­tion­al trau­ma to homi­cide vic­tims’ fam­i­lies by mak­ing a dis­tinc­tion between those cas­es wor­thy” of cap­i­tal pur­suit, and those not. To some­one in the throes of grief, the notion that their loved one’s mur­der is not the worst of the worst” is deeply offen­sive. Given that few­er than 2 per­cent of all homi­cides in Connecticut are pros­e­cut­ed as cap­i­tal cas­es, the major­i­ty of vic­tims’ fam­i­lies are left to con­clude that their loss wasn’t as hor­ri­ble as some­one else’s, not wor­thy of the atten­tion and con­dem­na­tion cap­i­tal cases warrant.

Still, it is those fam­i­lies who end up with cap­i­tal cas­es that bear the brunt of the system’s abuse. Capital cas­es receive greater media atten­tion and increased pub­lic scruti­ny. When a death sen­tence is hand­ed out, to the pub­lic, it seems like the case is over and jus­tice” has been served. However, this sen­tence sets into motion a decades-long process that the sur­vivors must con­tin­ue to live through. Being entrenched in a legal sys­tem can be harm­ful to any­one; to those suf­fer­ing from trau­mat­ic grief, the injury is compounded.

On top of all of this, the death penal­ty in Connecticut is a false promise. Because the state prides itself on not suc­cumb­ing to the temp­ta­tion of fast exe­cu­tions that would leave us open to the risk of wrong­ful exe­cu­tions, hard­ly any­one is exe­cut­ed in Connecticut. We want every­thing in Connecticut — to have the death penal­ty, but not the ter­ri­ble risk of exe­cut­ing an inno­cent per­son. In our attempt to have it all, vic­tims’ fam­i­lies are the ones left to suf­fer the consequences.

We have devot­ed our pro­fes­sion­al lives to car­ing for peo­ple, espe­cial­ly when those peo­ple are most in need. Following the mur­der of a loved one, peo­ple are tremen­dous­ly vul­ner­a­ble. We under­stand this on every lev­el. The death penal­ty is not what vic­tims need. If we are seri­ous about car­ing for the needs of vic­tims, we will aban­don the pre­tense of the death penal­ty and work for real solutions.

(M. Healy and J. Caron, Time to elim­i­nate the death penal­ty?” Litchfield News, February 23, 2012). The state leg­is­la­ture is cur­rent­ly con­sid­er­ing a bill to abol­ish the death penal­ty. See Victims. Read more New Voices on the death penalty. 

Citation Guide