Closure and its myths

Abstract

In the United States, when an offender on death row is about to be executed, family members of the victim(s) (i.e. co-victims) are permitted to witness the execution. A common justification for this practice is that it provides closure for the victims’ families (the ‘closure argument’); however, there is little empirical research to either refute or support this claim. This study examined the statements that co-victims who had attended an execution made to the press immediately following the execution, in order to learn more about their feelings about closure. The relationship between aspects of the crime, the offender’s last words, and the co-victim’s statements was also examined. Generally, results indicated that victims’ family members expressed their views on closure in various ways, and that the 23 percent who did mention closure were evenly divided on whether they felt the execution provided closure or not. Co-victims were more likely to mention some type of closure when they felt that justice had been served, and when the offender asked for forgiveness and stated a hope that the execution would bring the co-victim closure. Overall, qualitative and quantitative results did not support the closure argument.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.