The death penalty remains one the most contentious punishments in the criminal justice system. Reserved primarily for severe offenses like homicide, the intentional taking of a life, it serves as a form of retribution. The death penalty can be morally acceptable under capital cases, with one crucial condition: the victim’s immediate family should have a meaningful role in determining whether it is applied, ensuring their voices are heard during the sentencing.
Homicide stands apart because it irreversibly deprives someone of life, causing profound harm to loved ones. “Severe crimes” for capital punishment should be clearly defined as intentional murder where the evidence is strong. This restriction maintains the moral seriousness of the death penalty and prevents its use in less grievous cases.
Involving families in sentencing decisions can make justice more personal and meaningful, being able to give more retribution. Families could be asked if they have the death penalty as an option if the accused is found guilty. This respects their viewpoint and provides a potential sense of closure. Some states already allow victim impact statements and family participation, which studies show improved satisfaction with the judicial process for affected families (Britannica). Expanding on victim impact statements, a study published in the journal of Criminology found that among participants who viewed victim impact evidence, 62.5% said they would impose a death penalty, compared to only 17.5% of those who did not view the evidence. This reveals that those who viewed the impact statements perceived greater harm and suffering inflicted on the victims family. They significantly believed a death sentence could help the family find closure and help with the recovery process. This approach does not impose capital punishment directly, but shows how letting families decide what justice looks like for them can contribute to more satisfaction in the justice being served (Death Penalty Information Center).
Some critics may argue that capital punishment does not deter crime effectively and the risks of wrongful execution are very significant. While there is no conclusive evidence it deters homicide better than life imprisonment, its main purpose is justice and closure for the victims families; not deterrence alone (Death Penalty Info). The risk of wrongful execution requires rigid safeguards: rigorous appeals and evidence review must ensure the death penalty applies only in clear cases. This protects against error and respects the irreversible nature of capital punishment (Death Penalty Info).
Allowing families to participate in sentencing avoids assumptions about what justice means to them. Some may seek capital punishment; others may prefer alternative sentences. Giving families a choice honors their suffering and adds empathy to the legal process. All this can reveal how the death penalty can be a morally acceptable punishment for homicide when it upholds justice for victims and their families. By including the victim’s immediate family in the decision to go forth with capital punishment, the justice system becomes more humane and responsive, acknowledging those most affected by crime.
