Citation

Umbreit MS. Homicide Stud. 1999; 3(4): 93-97.

Affiliation

1University of Minnesota

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The response of M.L. Radelet and M.J. Borg [Homicide Stud 2000; 4(1): 88-92] to the article by Betty Vos and the author misses the central point of both the data presented in the two case studies and the larger theory of restorative justice. The two case studies that they present provide evidence of some of the most profoundly transformative attitudes between crime victims/survivors and offenders that one could imagine, particularly given the heinous nature of the crime committed. Author agree with Radelet and Borg that capital punishment is abhorrent, and it is also contradictory to his understanding of the principles of restorative justice. However, to advocate the ban of victim-offender mediation and dialogue in cases with inmates on death row who are awaiting execution is to strip those most directly affected by the horror of the crime of the opportunity to find some degree of meaning, healing, and closure: a fundamental pillar of restorative justice. Radelet and Borg strongly critique the methodology used in these case studies, referring to insurmountable obstacles to evaluation of the impact of such an intervention in death row cases.