This paper examines two contrasting perspectives on the death penalty as they relate to family closure and justice. Drawing on arguments by Susan Bandes and by Irl and Gary Stambaugh, the paper explores whether the death penalty genuinely fulfills survivors' needs, how the term "closure" is used and misused in capital cases, and what role the probation review process plays in prolonging family suffering. The paper concludes with the author's own position: that the death penalty should be determined by an offender's history and rehabilitation potential, not by the pursuit of family closure.
There are contradictory viewpoints concerning the death penalty, with some viewing it as necessary for family closure in capital cases and others viewing it as an excuse where closure is not clearly defined in the arguments. There are also questions of whether the death penalty actually restores communities and families, whether it truly serves justice, or whether it amounts to revenge for families and society. The similarities and differences in these viewpoints bring out points of victim complexity, clarity in the meaning of key terms, and how families can be further traumatized during probation hearings when offenders request parole review.
Susan Bandes argues that there is no clear definition of "closure," nor does the justice system have well-established rights to invoke closure in legal arguments. She acknowledges that some families have found closure when an offender takes responsibility for the crimes committed, but contends that the justice system uses closure as an excuse to seek the death penalty. Bandes claims the death penalty has no empirical grounding and that, given the complexity of victim needs, closure does not accurately reflect how people truly feel.
Irl Stambaugh and Gary Stambaugh argue, by contrast, that families are tortured by the probation review process for years, and that the death penalty is necessary to eliminate the suffering this process brings to families. The authors had a sister who was raped and murdered, and whose roommate was also raped and tortured. The judge sentenced the offender to life in prison, stating it would be an injustice to society to allow probation, given the court's determination that the offender was beyond rehabilitation. The offender had a consistent history of sexual assault against numerous victims and made disturbing statements during the review process. The family attended numerous probation review hearings and lived in fear for 37 years that the offender would be released and cause further harm. They argue that had the death penalty been permitted, the family would not have suffered through that prolonged ordeal.
Both viewpoints are ultimately seeking justice. Bandes' argument seeks clearer definitions of closure and a more principled account of the justice system's role in how that closure is handled. Stambaugh and Stambaugh seek justice in terms of ending the torture the system inflicts on families when violent criminals are not put to death.
"Similarities and differences between both arguments"
"Offender history should guide capital sentencing"
"Closure alone cannot justify capital punishment"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.