Citation

Radelet ML, Borg MJ. Homicide Stud. 1999; 3(4): 88-92.

Affiliation

University of Florida, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Should states be encouraged to develop programs that bring together families of homicide victims with killers of their loved ones who have been sentenced to death? After all, Professors M.S. Umbreit and B. Vos have presented data from two such encounters that indicate the participants, both killer and family member alike, derive benefits from such meetings. The data presented by Umbreit and Vos "conversations before an execution" do not fit the model of restorative justice in at least three important ways. First, restorative justice requires from both offender and victim not only a willingness or desire to communicate and perhaps meet, but also a willingness and ability to change attitudes and understandings as a result of their communication. Capital punishment and restorative justice are contradictory on this point; nothing can be restored after meetings in the last days of a prisoner's life, as the inmate is soon dead, and dead because of a retributive punishment that is increasingly administered hi the name of the victim's relatives. Second, restorative justice emphasizes recompense by the offender, actively taking steps to atone for the harm and injury he or she has caused. Success is measured partially in terms of the amount of harm repaired or prevented. Hence, any punishment process that does not help to repair injuries but simply creates new ones is incompatible with the restorative justice model. Third, restorative justice seeks to reduce the state's role in the justice process and to revitalize the ancient model in which victims, offenders, and communities all were actively involved in responding to crime and restoring peaceful relationships. Rather than minimizing the role of the state, the death penalty maximizes it.