This article was downloaded by: [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] On: 30 September 2014, At: 10:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

I Forgive You, but You Must Die: Murder Victim Family Members, the Death Penalty, and Restorative Justice Leo G. Barrile

a

a

Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA Published online: 26 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Leo G. Barrile (2014): I Forgive You, but You Must Die: Murder Victim Family Members, the Death Penalty, and Restorative Justice, Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2014.925022 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.925022

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Victims and Offenders, 00:1–31, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2014.925022

I Forgive You, but You Must Die: Murder Victim Family Members, the Death Penalty, and Restorative Justice Leo G. Barrile Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA Abstract: Previous studies have noted that in some capital cases, victim family members express forgiveness of the offender, empathy for his family, or for his adverse life experiences—but still support the execution. This article attempts to explain the phenomenon by identifying three types of forgiveness and the motives for them, and it explores the applicability of reparative dialogues between murder survivors and offenders. Empirical evidence comes from 52 interviews and/or open-ended questionnaires with survivors whose capital cases ended in an execution in Texas or Virginia. Most of the 52 survivors witnessed the execution, supported the death penalty, and rejected remorse when it was expressed by the offender. Yet some of them forgave the offender, empathized with the offender or his family, or were ambivalent about the death penalty, despite supporting the execution—the “forgive but die” sentiment. This subset of survivors—forgivers and empathizers—who are the most amenable to mediation dialogues are the focus of this study. Keywords: murder victim survivors, murder co-victims, death penalty, capital punishment, execution, mediation dialogue, restorative justice, closure, forgiveness, empathy

INTRODUCTION Previous research has documented that many murder victim family members in capital cases who forgave their loved one’s murderer still supported The author would like to acknowledge Bloomsburg University for a grant that furnished research assistants to help with the data collection, and to Mary Katherine Waibel-Duncan of Bloomsburg University and the anonymous reviewers and editor of Victims and Offenders, whose poignant recommendations made the paper better, but who certainly are not responsible for any of its shortcomings. Address correspondence to Leo G. Barrile, Bloomsburg University, 2112 McCormick Center, Bloomsburg, PA 17815. E-mail: [email protected]

1

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

2

L. G. Barrile

his execution. The “forgive but die” sentiment persisted even after a reconciling mediation dialogue or expressions of remorse from the offender (Barrile, 2010a; Umbreit & Vos, 2000; Umbreit, Vos, Coates, & Martin, 2006). The sentiment’s dissonance—why survivors would say they forgive but grasp onto the ultimately retributive punishment—has not been adequately addressed by previous research. That is the task at hand. This study explores the attitudes and sentiments of murder victim family members (survivors) in Texas and Virginia, who have experienced the brutal murder of a loved one and endured a lengthy legal process—including the offender’s execution, which most survivors attended. The study focuses on survivors who say they forgave the offender or who expressed empathy for him or his family. Some of these survivors had contact with the offender prior to the execution. Using the concept of “accounts” (Armour, 2003; Armour & Umbreit, 2012; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Tilly, 2006) the author analyzes interviews and open-ended questionnaires of survivors who tell their story—their personal and social accounts of the crime, the criminal, and the punishment. Survivors shared their sentiments, attitudes, and explanations, which were sometimes complex and contradictory, but which served to restore control or order to their tragically interrupted lives. In their narratives, forgiveness and empathy were usually fused with either resolute or equivocal support for the death penalty. In only one case did a forgiver reject the execution and support mercy for the offender, a forgive-and-live rather than a forgive-but-die sentiment. That led the author to postulate three types of forgiveness (restrictive, ambivalent, and redemptive); to discover the motives for each type; and to explore the role that reparative communication can play for all types of forgivers and empathizers.

Survivors’ Support for the Death Penalty For survivors, justice, vindication for the victim, relief from the judicial process, and reduction of fear of the offender (particularly that he will kill again) are factors that buoy support for the execution (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 1991; Barrile, 2010b; Gross & Matheson, 2003; Madeira, 2010). Many survivors feel emotionally relieved when the execution is over (Gross & Matheson, 2003). Seeking to dissipate chronic grief is also a factor bolstering support for the death penalty, regardless of the improbability of that outcome (Amick-McMullan et al., 1991). Support for the execution offers a degree of personal control or agency in survivors, who have been emotionally shredded by the crime and unwillingly linked to the offender. This phenomenon is referred to variously as judicial closure (Armour & Umbreit, 2007), relief and victim vindication (Barrile, Slone, & Larned, 2008; Gross & Matheson, 2003; Slone & Barrile, 2007), a conclusion of one process and the opening of another (Madeira, 2010), and personal control (Armour & Umbreit, 2012).

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members

Galan and Guerra (cited in Armour & Umbreit, 2007, pp. 411–412) found in 41 interviews of Texas survivors in 1999 that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms declined from 44% to 19.5% after survivors witnessed the execution, and none of them said they regretted attending. Similarly, Gross and Matheson (2003), using 138 postexecution media interviews in Texas from 1999 to 2002, found that relief was one of the most common themes expressed by survivors, who said they experienced a “conclusion,” an “end point in a long painful process” (p. 515). Slone and Barrile (2007), in a sample of 170 news interviews in Texas from 1996 to 2006, found that 50% of the survivors expressed closure or relief while 18% expressed forgiveness or empathy. And Madeira (2010), in 27 interviews of Oklahoma City bombing victims and their families, found that respondents generally loathed the word “closure” but accepted the role that the trial, testimony, and execution played in seeking vindication for the victims. Survivors who attended the execution felt that justice was done and the process was completed. Life without parole also contributes to a sense of personal control—perhaps sooner than capital punishment because the main legal chapter has been closed and the “involuntary relationship” between the offender and the survivor is not prolonged by the often-lengthy appeals process in capital cases (Armour & Umbreit, 2012). It is the legal limbo of the capital appeals process that elicits survivor frustration with the criminal justice system and leads to additional emotional distress, delaying the bereavement process—the survivor’s expression of and dealing with grief (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Veronen, & Smith, 1989). However the interlude after sentencing and before execution creates an opportunity for a reconciling dialogue with the offender (Szmania & Mangis, 2005).

Survivors and Reparative Communication Regardless of the form of ultimate punishment, execution or life without parole, survivors voice a desire to know more, to know why. An integral part of a victim’s narrative is reason-giving (Tilly, 2006), a way to make sense of what is a seemingly senseless, random, pathological act that destroys one’s sense of a just world (Fox, Von Bargen, & Jester, 1996; Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983). Communication between the survivor and the offender can render vital, sought-after information that can be used for reason-giving and meaningmaking, and perhaps bring partial emotional relief. There are several venues that make that possible, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Creating communicative environments for survivors and offenders is a first step in a restorative justice process. Szmania and Mangis (2005) find that an ideal period for an apology from the offender is after sentencing, when it is less likely to be perceived as politicking for a lighter punishment. Communication can be formal, as in an institutionally sponsored victim/offender mediation

3

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

4

L. G. Barrile

dialogue (VOMD) at the prison. It can be a remorseful declaration from the offender during a last statement at the execution. Or it can be a conference organized by the offender’s attorney, a defense initiated victim outreach (DIVO; see Madeira, 2010). Communication can also be informal and unsupervised, as in letters, e-mails, telephone calls, impromptu visits or meetings allowed by the courts or prisons, and even in newspaper op-ed pieces (Szmania & Mangis, 2005). In capital cases, one of the most common types of communication—albeit restricted, brief, and one-way—is the last statement. In Texas apologetic last statements doubled from 19% to 40% after the victim’s survivors were allowed to witness executions (Slone & Barrile, 2007). Last words are part of the iconic execution “frame” (Goffman, 1974), a closely constructed social ritual. Gross and Matheson (2003) describe the “hallmark execution,” in which the offender expresses deep remorse to the victim’s family, which is moved to forgive the offender, who then feels at peace with himself and (if religious) with his maker before he is executed. The hallmark execution is redemptive and reparative. In real executions, the majority of offenders do not apologize at their execution and if they do the majority of survivors do not accept the apology, seeing it as self-serving, insincere, or inadequate (Barrile, 2010b; Gross & Matheson, 2003). While hallmark executions are uncommon, forgivers and empathizers are more likely to accept a remorseful last statement as genuine, expressing empathy toward the offender or his family, and sometimes ambivalence about the death penalty (Barrile, 2010b). One of the most reparative communications is the dialogue between the offender and a victim family member, but it is quite rare in capital cases. Texas has allowed only a handful of formal dialogues in its history in these cases, though unofficial or informal communication has occurred at prisons, in courts, over the telephone, in letters, and through third parties. Face-to-face dialogues offer the greatest opportunity for restorative justice, and for bridging the “us/them” gulf (Tilly, 2008). Survivors have a chance to confront offenders directly with their grief and anger. They have the opportunity to discover the offender’s motives and the specifics of the situation on the fateful day of the crime. Survivors typically want to know as much as they can, particularly what their loved one last experienced and said. Offenders have the opportunity to hear survivors tell them about the collateral consequences of the crime, to take responsibility, to show regret and sadness, and to express remorse. These interactions change the premise of the normal, anonymous, antagonistic relationship between offenders and survivors and give survivors a chance to gauge the genuineness of the offender’s apology. Grief does not disappear. But the consuming hatred of the offender has a chance to subside. Both the survivor and the offender express feelings of relief and healing. VOMDs are found to be therapeutic, yet the empathy generated in the survivors for

Murder Victim Family Members

the offender did not abate their desire for the execution (Umbreit & Vos, 2000; Umbreit et al., 2006).

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Survivors and Forgiveness Survivors who are forgivers and empathizers are more likely to understand the emotional pain of the offender’s family and they can be moved by an offender’s expression of remorse—unlike most survivors, who reject such expressions as self-serving, inadequate, or irrelevant (Barrile, 2010b). Needless to say, forgiveness does not always indicate mercifulness. Researchers have described variations in forgiveness, such as hollow and true (that is superficially external versus genuinely internal) (Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1998); relationship or other-oriented versus self-oriented (Strelan, Feather & McKee, 2011; Takada & Ohbuchi, 2013; Wenzel & Okimoto, 2012), and socially obliged self-presentation (Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989; McCullough & Worthington, 1994) versus stress reduction (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Typical of these studies, Takada and Ohbuchi (2013) find that “true” forgiveness is relationship-oriented and is more amenable to collaborative conflict resolution than is “hollow” forgiveness, which they describe as self-oriented. These forgiveness dichotomies are rigidly categorical and do not adequately capture the complexity of feelings in capital cases where memories of a brutal killing, chronic grief, a desire for justice, and fears and concerns about the offender swirl together with cultural expectations, religious precepts, psychological needs, and core values. Survivor forgiveness does not stop short of mercy because it is hollow, but because forgivers are pulled in many directions emotionally and socially. They forgive, but often believe that the punishment is justice for the victim or protection for the community. In this paper the author focuses on forgivers and empathizers, particularly the three types of forgivers postulated (restrictive, ambivalent, and redemptive), the motives for each type, and the circumstances in which reparative dialogues can most appropriately be implemented.

METHOD This is a qualitative study based upon 52 open-ended questionnaires and 38 telephone interviews of close family members of murder victims (23 males, 29 females) whose offenders were executed in Texas or Virginia (mostly Texas). These two states performed nearly one-half (46%) of the 1,338 executions in the country since 1976, with Texas itself executing 37% of the U.S. total (Death Penalty Information Center, 2013). Most of the respondents witnessed the execution. Those identified as forgivers and empathizers are a subset of this sample. Fortuitously, the sample included a few survivors who had contact

5

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

6

L. G. Barrile

with the offender—three had face-to-face meetings with the offender, one a telephone conservation, and three received letters. The sample was selected by searching several public access websites from 2007 to 2012. The attempt was to obtain a list of survivors whose offenders had been executed. Details of capital murders, offenders, victims, and executions were available on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) website (2014) and the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office (CCPO) website (2014). Both sources maintain updated databases on executed offenders, which list the following: the offender’s name, age, race; the dates of the crime; education, occupation, and last statement; and the victim’s age, race, and location. The CCPO also contains statements of survivors and others—such as prosecutors, politicians, celebrities, and interest groups—and information about survivors present at the execution (such as their city of residence) along with news articles and detailed legal decisions regarding the case. Other news sources and Internet sites were also mined for information about survivors’ names and cities of residence1 . The effort produced a convenience sample of 52 respondents who completed questionnaires and respondents who consented to semistructured interviews. A preliminary questionnaire (17 items) was developed and mailed to potential survivors with an introductory letter and a request for an interview, which consisted of a set of open-ended questions on several topics that was developed as a guideline. Topics included sentiments about the victim, the crime, the offender, the offender’s family, their own family and friends, their community, organizations, the media, the criminal justice system, the death penalty, the last statement (if any), the execution experience, communication (if any) with the offender, and the survivor’s social and psychological adjustment. Respondents were encouraged to talk freely about their feelings and attitudes. The attempt was to make interviews more like conversations. Interviews ranged from one to three hours and were recorded and transcribed. In some cases there were subsequent telephone conversations, e-mails, and letters. Cases were analyzed to detect main themes that developed in each survivor’s interview, and comparisons were made to find patterns among interviews. The goal was to discover how survivors made sense of the crime and punishment and to generate concepts that best explained their sentiments and experience. Of the 52 murder victim family members, the main part of this article is restricted to 8 of the respondents, 6 of whom were identified mainly as forgivers (4 females and 2 males) and 2 of whom were identified mainly as empathizers (both males). As to communications with the offender, nearly one-half of the survivors heard an apology from the offender at the execution or in a communication or written statement. Of survivors, 3 (unrelated to the offender) had face-to-face meetings with him prior to the execution, 1 survivor had a telephone conversation, and 3 received letters. One meeting was an officially sanctioned VOMD sponsored by the TDCJ Victim Services Division, one was a DIVO, and one

Murder Victim Family Members

was an informal dialogue arranged by a correctional administrator at TDCJ the day of the execution at the cell-front of the offender with a survivor.

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

FINDINGS The challenge in qualitative research is to do justice to the people one is interviewing, and to guard against influencing their responses by overly directing the questions toward preconceived concepts or themes. That said, the previous research did render ideas about the kinds of responses that might emerge in the questionnaires and interviews of the survivors. Still, the strategy was to let the richness of responses lead as much as possible to subsequent questions. As interviews progressed, it became apparent that survivor feelings were not only diverse and varied among individuals but also within individuals who expressed seemingly contradictory sentiments, such as empathy yet demonization, forgiveness yet a desire for the execution. The paradox might be attributed to “emotional anomie”—the simultaneity of opposing emotions (Karp, 2001; Lauritzen, 1992). But if emotions are inherently nonrational why would they ever be normative or ordered? Societies do their best to bind emotions to external rules and norms that create an “appropriate” emotion for an “appropriate” situation. The “emotion rules” are socially constructed and do have an effect on an individual’s personal constructs of emotions. Too much unpredictability in a person’s expression of emotions and one might be considered troubled, sick, insane, or malingering (Karp, 2001). Individuals dealing with persistent grief from a homicide loss are more likely to have a welter of conflicting emotions about the death penalty and deviate from the emotion rules. Survivors may have no explanation for why they feel simultaneously vengeful and empathetic toward the offender or why they feel sadness, satisfaction, emptiness, and even humor at the execution. It is glib to say that they are all “coping” mechanisms, because survivors sometimes cope by suppressing these feelings and living life as practically as they can. Whether it is emotional anomie or simply emotional complexity, it is not amenable to purely rational social rules. Individual survivors expressed their own constellation of emotions, which varied noticeably among them.

The Forgiveness/Vengeance Continuum A typology of ten main sentiments regarding the offender and the death penalty were drawn from the responses of the survivors. They can be placed on a continuum from forgiveness to vengeance. They are forgiveness, empathy, accepting remorse, ambivalence, allayment of fear, relief, justice, rejecting remorse, demonization, and vengeance. Following are brief sketches of these sentiments.

7

8

L. G. Barrile

1. Forgiveness (restrictive—personal or ideological, supports execution; ambivalent—unsure about execution, but supports it in this case; redemptive—altruistic, rejects execution)

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

2. Empathy (sympathy for offender or his family, externalize blame for crime) 3. Accept Remorse (accepts an offender’s apology as sincere, genuine, conciliatory) 4. Ambivalence (dubious about or rejects the death penalty, considers life without parole) 5. Allayment of Fear or Concern (concern that offender will harm others again) 6. Relief (judicial, emotional, psychological closure, completion of a process, personal control) 7. Justice (death penalty is deserved for the harm caused, it is validation of the victim) 8. Reject Remorse (perceives offender apology as insincere, insignificant, irrelevant) 9. Demonization (individualized theory of crime, criminal as pathological, evil, monster) 10. Vengeance (revenge, persistent hatred, lethal injection is too painless a death) Most of the survivors see the death penalty as just, deserving, and warranted for the murder. The most common sentiment expressed by survivors is justice (85% of the survivors). The punishment is seen as fitting the severity of the crime and as validating the suffering and loss of the victim. Many said that they attended the execution for the sake of their loved one. The death penalty, the most extreme sentence one can pay, symbolized for them the public recognition that the victim’s life was valuable and that the retribution, the offender’s life, is the legitimate proof of it. In a similar vein, over one half (58%) of the survivors said they felt relief or closure from the execution and nearly one half (48%) felt the execution reduced their fears and anxiety about the offender escaping or being released to harm them or others. A little more than one third (35%) of the survivors express vengeance as a reason for favoring the death penalty and about the same proportion (37%) demonize the offender, describing him as evil or pathological. Similarly harsh on the offender, nearly one third blame the offender’s family for his criminality. Tellingly, over three-fourths of the survivors reject remorse when it is offered by the offender (one half of the offenders expressed remorse).

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members

By contrast, restoratively oriented sentiments are less often expressed by the survivors. Forgiveness occurs in only 15% of the survivors, empathy in 12%, sympathy for the offender’s family in 25%, and only 23% accept the offender’s remorse when it is offered. Similarly, only one fourth of the survivors express ambivalence about the death penalty. The main themes are more fluid than exclusive. For instance, while there were survivors who certainly expressed vengeance and others empathy, it would be misleading to say that they could easily be categorized into one type of survivor. For instance, forgivers in this sample nearly always supported the execution to allay their fears that the offender would somehow be released and kill again or simply that it was justice served. And some justiceseekers expressed empathy for the offender’s tragic life or ambivalence about the usefulness of the death penalty compared to life without parole. While sentiments are often portrayed in rhetoric as static, most of the survivors in this sample seriously considered the fairness and proportionality of the execution for the offender and for their loved ones. While the overwhelming majority believed the execution to be just and said they supported it before the execution, after the execution a few thought it was not painful enough, that the offender did not suffer as much as the victim. Others thought that perhaps life in solitary confinement might have been more painful and thus more proportional to the harm experienced by the victim, though most survivors stated that it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to keep a murderer alive for decades. A minority were ambivalent, indifferent, or even repulsed by the execution. And nearly all survivors pointed out that the execution had little or no effect on their grief—relief, but not a reduction of grief. The best chance that restorative justice has to be implemented in capital cases is by focusing on survivor sentiments that are situated on the less retributive side of the continuum. The most promising, of course, are those survivors who say they have forgiven the offender or are empathetic with the offender’s plight. Even here there is complexity. As stated above, forgiveness does not always indicate a willingness to cancel the debt. Forgiveness is often expressed for personal reasons, such as dissipating the debilitating anger and homicidal fantasies, or for religious reasons, to comply with the principles or doctrines of one’s faith. Similarly, empathy is often restricted to understanding a person’s circumstances rather than sympathizing with their pleas for mercy. Given these provisos, the following section explores the possibilities for restorative justice among 8 survivors survivors who expressed the greatest degree of forgiveness or empathy expressed in their narratives.

Forgiveness Forgiveness has two meanings. One is to renounce resentment or hatred of the offender; the other is to excuse or pardon the person for the offense

9

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

10

L. G. Barrile

(American Heritage Dictionary, 1992, p. 713). The first definition indicates a circumscribed forgiveness, one that stops short of excusing the behavior; the second is an unrestricted forgiveness that includes mercy and pardoning. The forgivers in this research can be delineated as well. There are restrictive forgivers, redemptive forgivers, and (those falling in between) ambivalent forgivers. Restrictive forgivers renounce their hatred of the offender. Some of them want to meet with the offender, and they accept remorseful expressions of the offender. Nevertheless, they want the death penalty to proceed. In this study there were two main sources of restrictive forgiveness, personal or psychological and ideological or religious. The former is based on a desire to save one’s sanity from the grip of hatred by relinquishing anger, resentment, vengefulness, and murder fantasies that consume one’s thoughts and feelings. Restrictive forgivers seek to shed the obsessive ruminations about the offender and the crime and the aggravating attachment of the offender to the memory of their loved one—a persistent involuntary relationship. Survivors, while undergoing counseling, may have been advised to abandon anger. In contrast, ideological or religious sources of forgiveness are based upon norms, values, or beliefs and in this sample are typically religious in nature. The survivors relinquish anger and resentment not only for psychological sanity, but also to comply with their religious or political beliefs—particularly, in this sample, the Christian directive to forgive one’s enemies, to hate the sin not the sinner, and to cleanse one’s soul of vengeful desires. However, restrictive forgivers stop short of restraining their support of the death penalty, and in some cases will reference the older religious mandate for capital punishment. By contrast, redemptive forgivers not only relinquish hatred and vengeance, but also are amenable to sparing the offender’s life—to reducing his sentence to life in prison and to helping the person become civil. They are typically against the death penalty, and believe it is inhumane. They would support commutation to a life sentence for the murderer. Ambivalent forgivers are unsure about the appropriateness of the death penalty for their loved one’s murderer, and passively support it—especially if other family members strongly advocate for it. Forgiveness occurred in 8 respondents, 5 of whom were restrictive, 2 ambivalent, and 1 redemptive. Fortuitously for this study 2 of the forgivers had face-to-face dialogues with the offenders and 1 received a long letter from the offender, which appears to have elicited her forgiveness.

Restrictive Forgiveness In the context of this study restrictive forgiving is performed for personal or psychological reasons or to conform to obligatory religious or cultural precepts. Restrictive forgivers struggle to renounce obsessive feelings of hatred, resentment, anger, and revenge, which they see as destroying their psyche

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members

or soul. Some may use their religion, spiritual advisors, or psychological counselors to arrive at this conclusion, while others do so on their own. Restrictive forgivers seek peace of mind and dissolution of the offender’s connection to their lives and to the memory of their loved ones. Their forgiveness dissipates hatred and rumination, but they do not pardon the offender and the debt they believe he owes to the victim and society. They believe that the death penalty is appropriate for the savagery of the crime, given the existing laws. Case 15 is a good example of a restrictive forgiver. She compartmentalizes forgiveness and justice. Case 15 had two officially sponsored mediation dialogues with her son’s murderer and his female accomplice. Case 15 believed that her religious faith guided her to forgive, and that she needed to tell the offender in person that she had forgiven him. Case 15 now speaks publicly about her case, particularly to religious groups. Case 15 was touched by how remorseful the killer was and that he had a religious epiphany in prison and became a devout Christian. She was equally unimpressed with the tepid apology and multiple excuses she received from the female accomplice, who blamed her own family for all of her problems and pitied herself more than the victim and his family. Upon Case 15’s request and the subsequent agreement of the male offender, the TDCJ Victim Services Division arranged a mediation dialogue. The dialogue took place in a visiting room at the prison with a window separating the participants. Notice how her religious beliefs form the foundation for her forgiveness: Why did you want to meet with the offender? I did it because my contact with him, it was several years after he murdered my son. My son was murdered in ’87 and I did not meet with him until 1999. So that was 12 years. But during those 12 years I had had some counseling, and I really struggled to do what God wanted me to do. And He made it very clear that I needed to forgive him. And once I did, I felt like I just had to go and tell him that I’d forgiven him. And that was my reason for mediation. And when I told the Texas Department of Criminal Justice about that, they were more than happy to make way for my mediation.

Note that Case 15 also cites personal or psychological reasons for forgiving, as in the following passage: Did you have anger at this guy? Did you want revenge at first? Yes, at first I did have revenge for him. And after, um, after, um counseling, and after studying over this for some years. It took about three years for me to really come to grips with this. And I’ve understood that I could not have bitterness and vengeance and hatred. I understood that. That, I mean, I know that when a person is bitter and has hate in their heart, that they cannot live a quality life. Um, they’re going to carry that with them and it’s going to make an old person out of them

11

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

12

L. G. Barrile really fast. And they’re going to be grumpy and unhappy and not have any friends. I want quality of life. I don’t want that. That was one thing that really drove me to decide that I would forgive him. And the forgiveness came as a willingness, and it’s very hard for people who have not been through it to understand, I’m sure. But if a person is willing, and in my case I was willing, and God just took it from there. I could say I wanted to forgive, and He just took it from there.

Note her desire to punish is straightforward, existing alongside her forgiveness: When you requested a mediation dialogue, did the TDCJ ask you if you were going to back up his appeals or requests for clemency? Oh no. No. No. They understood my feeling. I wanted the execution to take place because, um, he, he, because it was justified. [author’s emphasis] I felt like, that for the sake of society that the execution should take place. Ah, he did the crime and he should accept the execution, which he did. No I did not, have any, any, problem with the execution.

She tells the murderer that she has forgiven him, but also wants the death penalty to be carried out: There was a point about halfway through the mediation where I got angry and screamed at him and told him what a bad person he was. And, ah, just got it all out. And then things settled down. We took a break and things settled down. And we came back. And things ended on a good note. And I told him that I had forgiven him. And I hoped he had prepared himself for the kingdom of God, because God can forgive him too. And I hoped that he could accept that forgiveness, because I did not want him to burn in hell. I wanted him to be taken out of this society. [author’s emphasis]

She establishes another reason for supporting his execution besides the fact that in her mind it is justified—namely, that he is still a dangerous felon who would kill again. She demonizes him as a chronic murderer and, to her, his track record confirmed that view: I just asked him, if by some chance, some fluke, if he was set free, did he think he might kill another person? And his answer, after he thought about it for a minute, his answer was yes. And that is my reason. [her emphasis] People like that need to be taken out of society. And we can’t, we can’t continue to house and feed these criminals. [author’s emphasis] And it costs a ton of money to put them in incarceration. And I just think if they’re not going to get any better, which obviously they’re not. They’re turned loose every day. And within months they’re incarcerated again. So it appears to me that something’s not right here. And that feeling along with the fact that he had a choice. My son was the second person that he had ever killed.

Murder Victim Family Members

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Restrictive forgivers do not pardon the offender nor excuse the debt, and might not support a substitute punishment such as life without parole. Restrictive forgivers have elements of justice seekers. They see capital punishment as appropriate for the crime. Some restrictive forgivers have more compassion for offenders who are expressively remorseful. Notice how Case 15 differentially assesses the apologies from the female codefendant and the murderer: And how did your mediation with her go? It went okay. I had let go of it. I had forgiven her, but um, um, she’s not as remorseful as he was. I mean he was remorseful. . . . And she, she’s just not as remorseful as he was. She never apologized? Or did she apologize? Well, she did a little. I can’t remember the exact words. She acted somewhat remorseful, I guess, but the thing is with her I felt like it was an act. But with him I felt that he was pouring his heart out. I really did Did she say, well I didn’t think it was going to wind up that way? Did she make some excuses? Oh yeah. Uh huh. She did. And she gave me all kinds of excuses about how she was brought up, her mother gave her away when she was just a baby, and her grandmother tried to raise her and it was, oh, I don’t know, it was a horrible mess. It was just a, it was, she just wasn’t accountable. She wasn’t accountable. And he was. He was. You know, he cried, he, ah, telling me how sorry he was.

Case 15 believed she could distinguish genuine remorse from an artificial apology, and it was certainly more fulfilling for her to meet with her son’s murderer than the female accomplice. But as therapeutic as it was, her desire for the execution as justice for her son, combined with the offender’s admission that he would kill again, prevented any inkling in her to support mercy or a commutation of his sentence. An unrepentant offender makes mercy even more remote. Notwithstanding their forgiving sentiment, survivors facing offenders who denied committing the crime, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, might not be as amenable to mediation dialogues as with a contrite offender. Case 36 represents forgiveness despite the remorselessness of her mother’s murderer. She states clearly that she forgave the murderer, largely because of her religious beliefs, and like Case 15 she wanted the offender to die. But the offender never apologized, never displayed a semblance of remorse, and Case 36 had no desire to communicate with him in any way. She did not want him to take any satisfaction in affecting her life. Do you think if he had apologized, that it would have made a difference to you? Yeah, I think it would. I do. Um, I’m not sure I could say what kind of difference. Yeah, I mean showing remorse for killing somebody is kind of a human thing to do. The fact that he never did apologize, yeah, that was pretty brutal.

13

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

14

L. G. Barrile If he had made an impassioned apology would you have forgiven him sooner or not? Ah, no. No, I don’t think so. Um, I guess it is really hard to say, because he would have been, it would have been like he was an entirely different person, because everything would have had to be different for that to happen. I don’t think so. It was what it was. It happened. And even if he was sorry, he still did it. It would have made a small difference, but not a huge difference. Did you have any interest in doing a mediation dialogue with him? No, I didn’t want anything to do with him. I think part of it was maybe an issue of, as I think about it, just the word pride comes to mind. I’m not sure you understand that, but I didn’t want anything to do with him. You know, I was, probably, I didn’t want to look at him. I just didn’t. So, I can’t imagine. If I said anything to him, I’m afraid that if I opened my mouth I wouldn’t have stopped. You know it wouldn’t have been pretty. And so, you know, a lot of reasons not just, not just pride. You know, like I said before, I did not want him to know how much he had hurt me. You know, I didn’t want to admit, I didn’t want to give him that power, I guess, that he had rocked my world and all of that, you know.

Though the offender showed no remorse, Case 36 was not as opposed to life without parole as an optional sentence as was Case 15. However, Case 36 expressed the feeling that before he was executed, she thought the death penalty would be a relief, and after it was done, it was. I wanted it to be over, but I didn’t necessarily want to see someone die. You know, I wanted him dead but I didn’t want to watch. . . . And, you know, having become a Christian in the middle of the process, I was trying to have somewhat of a forgiving and grace filled attitude, of you know, not wanting to have revenge. I just wanted the justice system to do its job, what’s going to happen is fine. I was trying not to be greedy for revenge or bloodthirsty, you know, vengeance. What was in your heart about the death penalty? I had no problem with him being put to death. I was trying not to wish for it. I think. You know, I was trying not to, really long for it because the cards had already been committed. And honestly you know I wasn’t really sure if it would matter one way or the other if he was in prison for his whole life or if he was put to death. You know I wanted him to get justice, or at least not be on the streets certainly. I know there was a part of me that probably wanted him to die. I’m really not so sure that it wasn’t because I knew then it would be over for sure. Because, it seems like otherwise you never know for sure if they’re going to get out, even though they think they’re not. You know they get paroled. So I think that’s the only way I knew for sure that it was really over. If he had been put in prison for life without parole, as long as it was what they said it was, it probably would have been okay. But I certainly didn’t think, gee, oh please, spare him his life. There’s definitely a streak in there that said, he took her life, and I have no problem with him dying.

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members What was your reaction to the execution that day? It’s hard to separate the fact that it was over. That was the relief that it was over. Ninety percent of it was that. I knew I wasn’t going to be seeing it on the evening news again. You know it was a relief, knowing he was gone, was a relief. It was hard to measure what was more relieving. . . . It wasn’t closure. That takes a lot more personal working through for closure, but the relief in the end, at least the end of that ordeal, I would say definitely is what happened that day.

Case 36 clearly did not require an apology to forgive. Her religious belief propelled her. Not so for Case 46, whose adult daughter was murdered. She forgave only after she received a long letter from the offender, who expressed his transformation as a Christian and his sorrow for the murder. He asked for her forgiveness. Notice that Case 46’s forgiveness helps her to dissipate her hatred for the offender: He wrote me a letter. He gave it to his lawyer and through the pastor of the church that I had just attended. I didn’t want to open it, but I did. He said he had a bad life, that he didn’t know [my daughter] had a child, and that he was abandoned as a child. He apologized. I felt that “I’m sorry” wasn’t enough. At the bottom of the letter he asked me to forgive him. I had to do that, for my sake not his. I did not want to carry this hatred on for the rest of my life. . . . My love for her was greater than my hatred for him. He would be gone and my daughter would be there the rest of my life. I believe he had true remorse. He said something in his letter about his first few years in prison. He was cocky about it. Then a Christian group made him see what he did. After that he spent a lot of time thinking what he did.

And while Case 46 forgives to heal herself psychologically, it was the execution, apparently, that facilitated the disengagement of the offender from her memories of her daughter. The execution solved nothing in reality, but it did bring closure or an ending to that situation. I felt that . . . the victim, had gotten justice. And that I could have the memories of her life back without always thinking of her as a victim. It put the period on the issue. [author’s emphasis]

Restrictive forgivers have many reasons to steer clear of showing mercy or supporting an alternative to the death sentence. Some refer to the offender’s future dangerousness and apprehension about a possible release. Others mention the desires of other family members. Many voice a yearning to see justice done, which is a thin thread from resentment and revenge, the very contradictions of forgiveness. One might conclude that these forgivers are mixing retribution with forgiveness and that they are deluding themselves about relinquishing their feelings of resentment. But their support for the death penalty is often based upon concerns or fears that the offender might maneuver a release and

15

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

16

L. G. Barrile

continue to be a danger to society or even to the survivor. In other cases, conflicting feelings are related to the politics of the family, and the need to keep peace within it. These factors were evident in the following cases of ambivalent forgivers. They did not necessarily desire the death penalty but had major concerns impinging on their decision making. Supporting the death penalty might have been the way to avoid familial rejection or criticism and perhaps stigmatization as weak on a crime against a family member. Ambivalent Forgiveness Ambivalent forgivers are unsure of the death penalty—that is, whether to support it or not for their loved one’s murderer, but they fall just short of the redemptive forgiver who rejects the death penalty outright and supports a life sentence. There are two ambivalent forgivers in the sample. One who met directly with the offender, and one who did not. Both knew the offenders beforehand. Case 19 considered supporting a commutation of the death sentence of her mother’s murderer, but two issues blocked it. The first was the fear that the inmate, who purportedly was not taking his medications, would be released and repeat his crimes. At the time she was considering the issue, Texas did not have a life without parole sentence available for the defendant. The second reason was her family. She did not want to fight a battle against her brothers and sisters, who, she believed, desired the execution. It turned out that she was not the only family member who was ambivalent about the death penalty. Toward the end of the appeals process in this case, the offender and his lawyer implored officials to set up a meeting with a family member in an effort to obtain support for a last-minute sentence commutation. On the day of the execution, the chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice was present and asked the family if someone would be willing to talk to the offender. Case 19 volunteered. She was escorted to the Ellis Unit cell block where the offender was held awaiting the execution. She was seated outside of his cell and the chairman was seated nearby, down the hallway. Case 19 was able to talk with the offender through the cell door. Notice that she offers forgiveness to the offender from herself and on behalf of her mother, but believes she must reject his plea to support mercy because she has real concerns about his future dangerousness, and she does not want to contradict her siblings’ collective opinion, which she believes to be firmly supportive of the death penalty. What was your conversation with him? Well I haven’t told many people. And I wrote down what I said, but I haven’t looked at it in a while recently. When I walked in, I said, Hi [offender’s name]. And he said, I don’t know you. And I said, no, you don’t. We’ve never met. And he goes, and the light went on in his little head. You could see that, and he was drugged. They may deny it, but he

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members was. And he said, ohhhh, that’s why I could never figure it out. I never knew you. I said, you never knew me because I wasn’t ever in the house [while you were there]. And so, apparently this had been something that was bothering him. His lawyer told me that afterwards, because I talked to his lawyer afterwards. That had been bothering him a lot. About who I was, how I played in it, and why he could never remember me. And my sister and I look a lot alike [her younger sister knew the offender]. . . . So it seems like that was foggy in his mind. And the light went on when he saw me . . . So then he said he was sorry and he didn’t want to die. And um, when he said he was sorry, um, I told him I forgive you. [long pause, choking up] And I told him I was wearing my mother’s wedding ring, and this is her ring, and she forgives you. And then I put my hand through the lunch tray area, or, I can’t remember I think he reached out and I put my hand through, and um I just held his hand, and he said, I don’t want to die. And I said, I can’t help you. And I think at that time I got pretty, I think I realized that I was getting too emotionally upset, this was not going to do him any good. And I said, I gotta go. I mean, [chuckle] I heard that Bill Cosby or something about exit lines, I gotta go. I remember that at the time. Probably not the best one at the time.

Case 19 had an existential dilemma near the execution. A last ditch effort was made for commutation of the offender’s sentence and support from the victim’s family might have been instrumental in securing it. The family was contacted at the eleventh hour by the Board of Pardons and Parole and, as spokesperson for her family, Case 19 struggled to make what turned out to be a fateful decision: Towards the end, one of the appellate lawyers tried to call and talk to me. Did they think if you spoke in behalf of the offender articulately that it would have any bearing on the sentence or appeals? Oh absolutely. And so do I. And the reason I think that is that I got a call at 7 in the morning from the Board of Pardons and Parole asking me that day. Because they sent letters out to us and I responded. Maybe because mine was, I don’t know, a little heavy, that I responded to the letter. Anyway I talked to that lawyer that night and he said, he wants to talk to one of you all, he wants to talk to a family member. And I said okay, that packed a wallop. And I was cordial to the lawyer and I said . . . I don’t do criminal law, but tell me, if his sentence is commuted when will he get out, because he already had 20 years in prison. He said very shortly. So really a life sentence in Texas is really 20 years. . . . And so I said to him he’s got all that good time in 20 years, so when will he be out? He said, pretty soon. So I said the problem is, my understanding is that he doesn’t take his meds. He said, that’s right. That’s been his problem all along on death row, he hasn’t taken his meds. I said, well, then how could you want him out if you know he’s not going to take his meds? And he might do this again. I mean, he’s healthy right? He’s 38. I might be addressing this too logically, but I just don’t see a solution here. So, he said, he still wants to talk to a family member. I said I would pass it on.

17

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

18

L. G. Barrile So the next morning I got a call from the Board of Pardons and Parole, 7 in the morning, I wasn’t trying to be rude or anything, but he said this is Victor Rodriquez, we got your letter, we’re reading your letter as a board. He said, is there anything you want to say, or whatever, and I said, haven’t you all made your mind up already? I mean that’s kind of rude, calling me in the morning the day of his execution to further cause anxiety. And he said, yeah, we have [made up our minds]. But I remember thinking that was the most bizarre call I ever had. If any one of us had told anyone on the board or called the governor’s office, then they probably would not have executed him. That’s the feeling I got then, and that’s the feeling I got after getting more information about it filtering back to me. The problem still remained, that he would have gotten out. See now they’ve changed it. We now have true life. We didn’t back then. If indeed there were true life without parole would you have been inclined to support it? I might have. But I would have had to weigh how that recommendation, that action would have played with intrafamily relations. In other words if others couldn’t accept it, it wasn’t going to be my battle. I didn’t feel so strongly about it that it would have been my battle. But did I need to see him dead? No, I did not need to see him dead, [author’s emphasis] because he was out of sight, out of mind. I had moved on. I put it away until . . . the execution. And the family was pretty unanimous about it? Oh yes, I was the only softie one.

It turned out that she was not the only “softie” in the family. Two other family members did not want to publicly oppose the death penalty for fear of contradicting what they believed to be the family sentiment. A third family member was ambivalent about its usefulness so long after the crime. It was much closer to a 50/50 split in the family than anyone realized. If Case 19 had known the true sentiments of her family members, she might have supported life without parole had it been available. In a similar vein, Case 39 succumbed to family sentiment, advocating the death penalty in writing at their request even though he had forgiven the offender and was troubled by what he perceived to be vengefulness. Case 39’s parents were killed. He became terribly ill during the trial and attributed it to the stress of the crime, extreme grief, and an obsession with the offender. He was determined after recovering to purge himself of negativity. He began praying for the soul of the offender, even instructing his then three-year-old son to do the same. He reluctantly agreed with his family members to write a letter for the victim impact statement supporting the death penalty, but his heart was not in it. However, after the execution he said that he felt an intense sense of relief. Notice that Case 39 forgives the offender to heal himself psychologically and religiously. Furthermore, he impresses on his son the importance of forgiveness, this despite the complete lack of remorse in the offender.

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members As far as forgiving him, I did that prior to the execution. However, it was after I went into the hospital with double pneumonia and almost died myself. At that point I realized that I could not allow him to do any more damage to me and my family than he had already done. It’s fairly easy to forgive people for the simple things, but we must be able to forgive people for these types of things. Otherwise, he wins. I know this is no game, but I refuse to let him occupy any more of my thoughts. That would not be fair to my parents and uncle or any of my surviving family. As I told you on the phone, I had to tell my son that we had to pray for his soul. Even though I had forgiven him, it was still hard to tell my son to do this. He was only about three years old when it happened but he knew what was going on. This was the perfect opportunity to teach him about forgiving. Every day following their death, for a year, he would pick up the phone and just say “hello Meme, hello Papa, I love you.” This of course broke my heart day after day. So, as you can see, I had to forgive him. [from an e-mail sent after the interview] It’s uh you know probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my life was to tell my son that we had to pray for him, you know that’s probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my life. . . . I mean we, we, we still, my son and I we still pray for him at night you know before he [was executed] prayed for his soul. [from the interview] Well you know what, I’ve been so fortunate uh God just took this bitterness away from me. I’ve never felt bitter towards him. I’ve never hated him. I’ve never you know, but to pray for him is something else to do [nervous laughter] you know. I can kind of put it on the back burner and did not think about him too much, but you know I don’t let, I don’t let bitterness eat me up. It’s, I’m not gonna’ you know he did his damage that day and that’s all he’s, all I was, that’s all I was gonna’ allow him to do to my family. I wasn’t gonna’ teach my son to hate him; I wasn’t gonna’ hate him. I wasn’t gonna’ spend my, the rest of my life and my time and my energy being bitter and hatred towards this guy. He, the damage he did that day, that’s where it stopped. I wasn’t gonna let him do anymore to me. [from the interview]

His ambivalence about the death penalty and his reluctant conformity to his family’s wishes are evident below, but so is the relief he received from the death penalty: I didn’t want to feel like I had any blood on my hands by trying, trying to convince somebody to take somebody else’s life, you know. I didn’t, I didn’t feel that, I shouldn’t had had been a part of that, but my family wanted it. That’s what everybody in my family wanted and I figured if it was going to help them, then, then, I was going to do it and I did, and after I did it, you know, I have to be honest with you, after he was put to death I got a lot more closure out of it than I ever thought I would.

Case 39 describes his ambivalent feeling about supporting the death penalty as having, “blood on his hands.” His loyalty to his family, particularly their emotional well-being, suppressed any support he might have voiced for leniency.

19

20

L. G. Barrile

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

In an important way, praying for the offender’s soul allows his forgiveness to be detached from supporting mercy in this material world, and permits him to experience closure after the execution. His letter to the court supporting the death penalty was his way, like Case 19, of avoiding potential family criticism and being stigmatized as soft on a horrific crime against a family member. Redemptive Forgiveness Redemptive forgivers typically forgive because it is consistent with their core values—religious, cultural, or political—and they reject the death penalty as an inhumane punishment, which they see as cruel to the offender and his family, and diminishing of society as a whole. Redemptive forgivers move to the level of merciful compassion, of fully pardoning the offender. There was only one survivor in the sample who fell into this category, and he is, in more than one way, a singular case. He was the most distant of any survivor from the victim, his daughter-in-law. While he was very angry and hateful at first, he claims to have had little or no long-term reaction to the loss. He said he felt sad about her death, but also felt sad at the offender’s death. Case 18 believed that the murderer’s prison conversion to Christianity was genuine and forgave him. Case 18 said that his attitudes about the death penalty changed and he was upset that the offender had been on death row for ten years, hoping and fighting for a commutation only to be executed. But Case 18 believed that the offender’s newly found faith had helped him bear his time, and would ultimately save his soul: That’s horrible. That’s horrible. Ten years of wondering is there any way they are not going to kill me. He’s sitting there for ten years hoping somehow there’s a chance they might not kill him. You don’t know, but I heard that he had a spiritual change. And if he had some security in knowing where he was going, then it might not have been as bad. In the first part of this thing I was very sad, because we had lost her [his former daughter-in-law]. [But] I never got the anger that my son got.

Case 18 externalizes the offender’s blame, arguing that the offender’s father should be executed for the way he treated his sons: I hear through the church that he had a conversion. I also heard through the church that he was an abused child. Both of them [offender and his brother] were abused children. So really we executed the wrong people. We should have executed the daddy. Him, I have stronger negative feelings about. I didn’t realize it before, but I feel more angry at the father doing this to the children than them doing this thing [the murder]. Could he have said anything to you or your family? It would have been good for him, you know, asking forgiveness. It’s good for the person asking for it. I didn’t hate the man. I didn’t need to forgive him anything. He hurt people I loved, but he hadn’t actually, how do I say this, [my estranged

Murder Victim Family Members

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

daughter-in-law] was not like my own child. I was not that close. So I don’t think I would have enjoyed talking to him about his spiritual move. I just never did it. I was too busy. I regret it a little now that I didn’t go talk to him. What would you have said to the offender? Right afterwards I would have had a hard time saying [anything]. What I would say now would sound more like a Christian approach. We pay the price for big sins and little sins. Yours was a big sin. Do you think he should die for a big sin? No. I think he should have had clemency and served a life term. I find that the older I get the more I move away from capital punishment. Although when I was younger I was strong about if you put somebody to death they won’t kill anybody again. If people are repentant, I think we ought to forgive them. If they’re not repentant, I don’t know how I feel. [author’s emphasis] How about if the offender’s family came to apologize? That’s totally inappropriate. It takes a lot, because that’s usually what gets exploded at. What do you think helped you the most in dealing with your loss? Hearing that a man had a Christian conversion.

Redemptive forgivers would reject the death penalty out of hand, but notice Case 18’s proviso about the offender’s need to express religious repentance before he would consider complete forgiveness and mercy. If the offender apologizes, forgivers typically accept his remorse as genuine. They are more likely than other survivors to request, or at least think about, mediation dialogues with the offender. They are more likely than other survivors to see the offender as redeemable spiritually if not behaviorally.

Empathy Empathizers, like forgivers, humanize the offender. They perceive that the offender is likely to have become dangerous because of his experiences, his miserable family life, or the failure of social institutions—such as social service agencies and the criminal justice system—to take appropriate action. They are more likely to spread the blame for his actions. They are also more likely to know the offender. There were 6 empathizers, 4 of whom knew the offender and 2 of whom also forgave the offender (Cases 18 and 19 discussed above). Like forgivers they would accept an apology from the offender as genuine, and they would be inclined to dialogue with the offender. They see the offender as able to change. Yet they have conflicting feelings. They also believe the death penalty will give a sense of relief or allay their fears and concerns that the offender will harm people again. They typically understand the origins of the offender’s violence, but they believe the offender may still be dangerous to society.

21

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

22

L. G. Barrile

Case 27 befriended the offender and introduced him to his friends before his mother was murdered. But the offender was defensive and hostile. He never fit in, and ended up in what Case 27 described as a “scrimmage” with one of his friends. Case 27 saw the offender as a troubled, angry, “demented” person who drank heavily, took illegal drugs, and never held on to a job. He believes the offender became a better person in prison, one who might have been an “asset” to society, helping those similar to himself. He was dramatically affected by the execution. In fact the execution elicited his empathy. Notice how Case 27 externalizes the blame onto the offender’s neglectful and abusive family: Unfortunately several lives were lost because of parents not taking care of their child, or people having children that shouldn’t have children, that didn’t take care of them. So [the offender’s] life was taken, my mother’s life was taken, the little boy that he drowned, and all because the mother refused to take care of the child. To me that’s the thing. I felt sorry for him. I really did. . . . How old was he when he drowned the young boy? I heard he was around 14 and the heinous part of it, I mean he tied the boy’s hands and pushed him in, off a raft and into a bayou just to watch him drown. But again I go back to when he was young, four or so. His mother was drunk and in a stupor and in a bar, abandoning him, not abandoning him but never around to take care of him. And he, he got hit with a car, a truck, and that may or may not have caused some damage to his brain. This is all stuff that I heard or read later on that his father started raping him, if you would, at seven. You can definitely, well not can, definitely mess up the frontal lobes of his brain. Um, so the boy never stood a chance in life from the time he was born. He was doomed since the day he was born. I heard that someone tried to get in touch with his parents when he was being released by probation, but they didn’t respond? Well, correct, but ah, the mother, from what one of my sisters told me or heard, they tried, tried to get a hold of the mother, and finally tracked them down to a bar or what have you. And they said, I don’t want to have anything to do with him. He’s trouble. And the grandmother tried calling the house one time and the phone was busy and didn’t bother calling back until the day afterwards [the day after the killing]. She said, you know, I tried calling about four or five days ago and the phone was busy. I was going to try to tell y’all that he was bad news, and y’all should watch out, but she never called back again.

Case 27’s explanation of the offender is an example of making sense or explaining “why” after a homicide (Armour, 2003; Tilly, 2006). The reasons for the tragedy are traced to the offender’s social experiences and familial and societal neglect. His narrative is typical of empathizers who are more likely to externalize blame and individual responsibility for crime. Contrast that with most other survivors, who focus the blame for the murder on the individual’s immoral character, personality defects, or moral flaws. Empathizers

Murder Victim Family Members

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

seem amenable to restorative justice strategies. If given the opportunity, they would more likely dialogue with the offender, especially if he were remorseful. Indeed, Case 27 regrets that he did not speak with the offender before the execution, though he expresses doubts that at that time he could have. The execution itself was, oddly, an epiphany for him. It tore away the anger, apathy, and repression, eliciting his empathy and sorrow for the offender: I would have liked to have felt at the execution how I felt an hour and a half later. And that’s my greatest regret that I did not say something to him. I do not blame him. I do not blame him at all. I blame his mother and his father. And that’s it. And I blame the justice system. There’s no such thing as minor’s records being suppressed. I no sooner got on the road after it happened, heading back from Huntsville to Houston and could not drive the vehicle. I was so emotionally distraught. I completely fell apart. Just completely fell apart. Uh, ah, a couple of days after that I couldn’t even, I started to say something. I went to my customers the next day or two days later and I walked in and I stood at the door and he looked up at me and I could tell he wanted to say something and he finally said, was that you on TV? And I started to say yes and, you know, broke down. It was, it was, but yet I didn’t even cry from the day it happened till, till then. Yeah, but again, it was, the original thought was anger. He has to die, to feeling sorry for the boy. I never felt sorry for him until that moment. And then I finally realized that this is not his, his fault. This, it is his mother’s fault. It was tough. And I still have a lot of work to do on myself personally. As therapists say, it’s a continual process for the rest of your life.

He accepts the offender’s apology and it confirms his empathic feelings: The apology had an effect. It meant everything to me. It affirmed what I knew down inside. He would have been a good person.

But, confirming the simultaneity of dissonant sentiments, he supports the death penalty: Yes, before the execution I was for the death penalty. And it might sound twisted but I’m still for the death penalty, not so much for a deterrent in crime, but almost as a humanitarian side. When I walked through that prison and I looked at those guys in those cells. . . . It’s not unjust. It’s cruel. It’s extremely cruel. And that’s why I think they should be put to death, to let their soul go in whatever direction it should be. The death penalty is humane. It’s much, much more humane than being put in their cell.

Empathy and an understanding of social conditions only took this survivor so far down the road toward forgiveness. For him redemption might be there in the offender’s afterlife, but perhaps only temporarily for those inmates who have reformed themselves in prison and reside on death row.

23

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

24

L. G. Barrile

A similar complex stew of sentiments, compassion yet support for the death penalty, exists in Case 25, whose adult sister was murdered. Like Case 27 he knew the murderer, though much better as a workmate and friend. The offender did not make any remorseful gestures during his entire time on death row until his last statement, which Case 25 witnessed. Case 25 was saddened about the death penalty, but said that it brought him closure: “It’s closed the chapter on a 15-year book.” He also thought that it was deserved. He expressed empathy for the offender’s family and the offender’s life, describing the murderer as fine when he wasn’t using drugs. But he saw the offender as uncaring until faced with the certainty of death after all of his appeals were exhausted. Ironically, as with Case 27, the execution brought the emotional issues to a head for Case 25: There was no remorse, nothing. I don’t know how to say it, but there was nothing but selfishness in him every time we went to court with him till they set his death date. Now as soon as they set his death date, he could hardly walk. I mean, he was so out of it, I mean, he snapped to his senses, I think. I think he thought it was all a joke until they set his death date. When they set his death date that’s when I saw remorse in his eyes. But until that day, there was no remorse, no nothing. He wasn’t trying to contact us or, you know, any type of communication between us until the execution. It was actually minutes before his death that he apologized or said any words at all to us. I mean it was seconds before his death.

For Case 25 the execution was saddening, and his empathy emerges as he and his family anticipate witnessing the execution: We talked the whole way. Everybody was really, really nervous. We didn’t know what to expect. Everybody felt very sorry for him. Because, I mean, I hate to see another life taken. Everybody did feel sorry for him? Yeah. Absolutely. That’s the way I felt, I mean, everyone felt very remorseful and very sorry for him. You know, and very sorry for his family. You did want him to have the death penalty, but at the same time you saw it as a waste of life? Yeah. I did. You know I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, just as the book says. I am a firm, firm believer in that. And if you do the crime then you do the time. But I did feel, I don’t know so much that I felt sorry for him, but for his family, the people I had sorrow for.

He is definitely touched by the apology which he thinks is sincere: I thought his apology was very sincere. I think he directed it toward the right person which was [my niece].

Murder Victim Family Members

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

And he regrets the fact that he could not make contact with the offender before the execution to talk. He was certainly a prime candidate for dialoguing, and establishing a reparative interaction with the offender: It disturbs me that I couldn’t contact him or I didn’t know. I didn’t have the resources to contact him to, you know, ask him questions. Then again, if I ever did have the ability to do that, would he do it?

Case 25 also has all the earmarks of emotional anomie from the execution. He describes it as a flood of emotions. It resurrected the imagery and grief of his sister’s death, and it restored the mourning process: I mean when we were in that little chamber, oh my God the emotions. I mean, from sorrow to, I can’t say from sorrow to happiness, but a full flood of emotions. I mean from head to toe. I never, ever felt that way, nor would I want anyone else to feel that way either. It was something else. Do you think it was worth it to go? Oh yeah, I had so much closure in my life since I went, since I attended that. I mean, the first week I could hardly sleep at all without seeing him laying there on the table. It was a very, very tough thing to see, but I don’t regret it one minute. Did it bring back memories of your sister? Absolutely it did. I thought about my sister suffering. Gee I had so many emotions going through me at the time. I thought of, I mean, anything that had to do with that situation was going through my mind. And, I mean, the whole family after it was over, we all huddled together and just bawled and bawled and bawled till probably midnight that night. It brought it back to day one.

The empathizers above were similar. They knew the offender and were close to him at one time. They waited many years for the execution. They experienced an emotional storm from the execution that made them rethink their feelings about the offender and enliven their mourning process. Unfortunately, the appeals period in these cases seems to have alienated the survivors from the offenders, but because the survivors knew the offenders it is likely that a dialogue could have been successfully orchestrated.

DISCUSSION The study focused on a subgroup of murder survivors, specifically forgivers and empathizers, who (at first blush) appear more amenable to restorative justice even in the face of the death penalty. Yet it was found that while they forgave and empathized, most of them still supported the execution beforehand and experienced relief afterward. The forgive-but-die sentiment became normalized in the narratives of the survivors and helped them make sense of and thereby control the maelstrom of negative feelings and attitudes that

25

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

26

L. G. Barrile

obstinately hung over them after the crime. Forgiving and empathizing clearly reduced the survivors’ anger, hatred, and obsessive ruminations about the offender and the crime. Three types of forgiveness were identified—restrictive, ambivalent, and redemptive. Restrictive forgivers implemented psychological and/or religious reasons to forgive, but still supported the death penalty. Ambivalent forgivers were not as supportive of the death penalty, but had serious concerns about the offender’s release and/or their family’s negative reaction if they did not voice their support for it. Redemptive forgivers reject the death penalty as inhumane and inimical to their cultural, religious, or political values, and support life sentences over death. Two of the forgivers in the study, one restrictive and one ambivalent, met face-to-face with the offenders, which opened the opportunity for reconciliation. For the first time, these survivors could hear a genuine expression of remorse, a plea for forgiveness from the offender, and could see the offender in a different light. Yet both of them also desired the death penalty and were relieved after it was administered. From what the forgivers and empathizers expressed, there is room for mediation dialogues, particularly in cases where the offender is remorseful. Notwithstanding the majority of the respondents’ support for the death penalty, many of the forgivers and empathizers—whose offenders had expressed remorse—believed that it would have been beneficial for them to meet with the offender. The implementation of restorative justice in death penalty cases is difficult, even in cases where the survivors are likely to be amenable to a mediation dialogue. The postconviction appeals process, typical in death penalty cases, constructs one of the main roadblocks to reconciliation. It encourages the offender to hunt for ways to reduce his criminal responsibility and save his life rather than to assume full accountability for his crime and apologize to the family. The challenge is to somehow pierce the ubiquitous adversarial process and encourage the offender to make amends, to be accountable, to apologize for his acts, and perhaps to leave the world knowing that he attempted to make peace with the victim’s family. That happened in the dialogues above, and in several of the cases in which the offender offered remorse during his last statement or in other communication with the survivor. The interviews indicate that anger does dissipate over time, and that support for the death penalty is at least partly sociological. Some forgivers harmonized their stated opinion favoring the death penalty with their families, whom they believed supported the execution wholeheartedly. But they had weaker internal support for it. They felt they would betray their family and the victim if they publicly stated their uncertainty about the death penalty. And most forgivers and empathizers believed the offender would remain a threat to them and others if his life were spared. These may seem like rationalizations

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members

to support the execution and reduce the dissonance of their sentiments, but their concerns were palpable. Sociological reasons may also underlie the respondents’ expressions of forgiveness. The interviews indicate that some forgivers were harmonizing their sentiments with their religious communities or social circles. It seemed some wanted to demonstrate that they had “moved on,” that they would not be obsessed with the offender and the crime, and that they had performed the religious directive to forgive. In stating forgiveness they escaped the social stigma that is sometimes attached to victims, who have prolonged stress and complicated grief. Undoubtedly, forgiveness helped their emotional well-being by exorcising their obsessive anger and rumination. Forgiveness played many roles for the survivors, though pardoning the offender was not usually one of them. The generalizability of this study’s findings are circumscribed by the sample, which is small, self-selective, and nonrandom. It is drawn from two states with the greatest implementation of the death penalty, and consists of a majority of respondents who supported the death penalty, attended the execution, and believed it to be justice for their loved ones. Yet despite the sample’s limitations, the richness of the data furnishes insight into the sense-making narratives of the survivors, revealing their sentiments about the victim, the offender, the punishment, and communication with the offender. The study sheds light on the seemingly contradictory forgive-but-die phenomenon, the apparent dissonance between demonizing the offender and empathizing with his social situation. Clearly, the survivors in this sample who spoke directly with the offender and heard his remorsefulness were moved, as were the offenders. Reconciliation and reparation, to a degree, took place. For purposes of restorative justice this study indicates that the forgivebut-die sentiment is not a barrier to mediation. Yet while dialogues would be beneficial to both participants, they are unlikely to alter survivors’ attitudes about the death penalty, especially in Texas and Virginia. The death penalty is not only on the books in these states, it is regularly implemented, and thus it is expected as an ultimate punishment when issued by the courts. This cultural and institutionally legitimated expectation of the execution (Unnever & Cullen, 2006; Zimring, 2003) makes it indeed difficult for survivors, even forgiving and empathetic ones, to relinquish their approbation of it. An uncommon but promising avenue for reconciliation is the family-tofamily dialogue, about which the respondents hint. Survivors who express empathy toward the offender’s family (regardless of their animosity toward the offender) might be amenable to an interfamily dialogue. But this is a delicate undertaking. Some of the respondents reported that the offender’s family members pleaded with them to request a life sentence or excoriated them as vengeful and bloodthirsty if they did not. Survivors feel insulted by both of these stratagems. Furthermore, some survivors blame the offender’s family for creating a dangerous violent criminal through neglect or abuse. Obviously,

27

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

28

L. G. Barrile

in these cases dialogues are unworkable. However, when both sides are empathetic, dialogues can be therapeutic and ought to be sponsored. In effect, both the offender’s family and the victim’s family commonly face a complicated bereaving process; the offender’s family through anticipated grief before the execution (Sharp, 2005). The possibilities for rapprochement are illustrated in Case 8, in which the offender and victim families were former in-laws. The offender killed his ex-wife and her young daughter. Although the parents of the survivor and offender were not close in the past, they supported each other emotionally during the process. The victim’s father, Case 8, stated it this way: We didn’t know his family from Austin before the crime. After the trial we talked. We told them we didn’t blame them for what happened. They consoled us as much as we consoled them.

Although the victim’s father supported the death penalty, he and his wife openly dialogued with the offender’s parents, who offered sympathy and remorse in behalf of their son. Similarly in Case 3 the brother of a murder victim, though he was an ardent supporter of the death penalty, reflects on the remorseful and sympathetic statements made by the offender’s family members: I saw the mother and said I have nothing against you, but your son. She said she understood. His mother had contact with my aunt. The sister of one of the perps placed blogs online saying she felt bad for the victim’s family. That touched me. [I thought at the time] it’s going to suck for them at his execution. The loss is the same. I could hear his family at the execution. I felt bad for his mom.

Even where there was no direct contact, several survivors said that it would have been heartening to hear expressions of sympathy or remorse from the offender’s family members. However, the majority of respondents wanted nothing to do with them, especially when survivors blamed them for helping to create a damaged character through their neglect or abuse. Some survivors complained that it was unnerving to hear the offender’s family give excuses and rationalizations at the sentencing hearing, at the courthouse during the trial, and through statements made to the media or on the Internet. There is strong evidence here that while the expression of sympathy and remorse from the offender’s family is not a precondition for survivors to forgive, it is an important ingredient in orchestrating a reconciling dialogue even many years later. Consider the extreme case of ethnic genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The Association Modeste et Innocent (AMI), as part of the national effort at reconciliation, is training released Hutus who had murdered Tutsis 20 years ago to express their remorse, to ask for forgiveness, and to render aid to the survivors. The survivors typically accept the remorse and pardon the murderer (Dominus & Hugo, 2014). Granted, the victimization occurred in a

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Murder Victim Family Members

civil war where politics played a central role, and most of the offenders live in the same villages as the victims. Nevertheless these dialogues are imminently reparative and would never have taken place if the death penalty was expected and eventually implemented. AMI’s effort is an example of the need for and effectiveness of peacemaking or compassionate criminology, where justice is defined as open communication and negotiation (Pepinsky, 2006; Quinney, 1991, 1993). In sum, while valuable insights were derived from the interviews in this study, there is a need in future research to pursue more widely representative samples, particularly survivors in life without parole states and those who reject the death penalty. Armour and Umbreit (2012) include the former, but lack a sufficient number of death penalty cases after execution, thus disregarding the relief and sense of control experienced by these survivors. On the policy front, this study suggests that advocating dialogues between offenders and murder victim family members, even if they are conducted through electronic devices such television, computer and telephone, or via mail, can be reparative for both the offender and the survivor, regardless of the sentencing outcome.

NOTE 1. Productive sites used were the Associated Press archive (http://www.apnews archive.com/NewsArchive/MainPage.aspx#?SearchText=executions&Display=&start =0&num=10), Reuters Edition U.S. (http://www.reuters.com/news/us), United Press International (http://www.upi.com/), Fight the Death Penalty in the USA (http://www. fdp.dk/uk/exec/), Pro Death Penalty.com (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/pending/ scheduled_executions.htm), and the Death Penalty Information Center (http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf)—all of which contain news reports and information regarding executions. Executions are also covered by local newspapers where executions take place in Texas that are available online—the Austin Statesman (http://www.statesman.com/), the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/), and the Huntsville Item (http://itemonline.com/). This information was placed into the White Pages website (http://www.whitepages.com/) to obtain addresses, but unfortunately there were numerous people with the same names at different addresses, which led to many false leads. To date 964 questionnaires have been mailed; many of them were returned as undeliverable, many were returned by same-named but wrong persons, and others were not returned at all.

REFERENCES American Heritage Dictionary. (1992). (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (1991). Homicide as a risk factor for PTSD among surviving family members. Behavior Modification, 15, 545–559. Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Veronen, L. J., & Smith, S. (1989). Family survivors of homicide victims: Theoretical perspectives and an exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2, 21–33.

29

30

L. G. Barrile Armour, M. P. (2003). Meaning making in the aftermath of homicide. Death Studies, 27, 519–540.

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. S. (2007). Exploring “closure” and the ultimate penal sanction for survivors of homicide victims. Marquette Law Review, 91, 381–424. Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. S. (2012). Assessing the impact of the ultimate penal sanction on homicide survivors: A two state comparison. Marquette Law Review, 96, 1–131. Barrile, L. G. (2010a, February). A family divided: Murder survivors’ attitudes about punishment. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences annual conference, San Diego, CA. Barrile, L. G. (2010b, November). It was a sad sorry: Murder survivors’ attitudes about the offender and the execution. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual conference, San Francisco, CA. Barrile, L. G., Slone, N., & Larned, D. (2008, March). Are executions therapeutic for covictims of murder? Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences annual meeting, Cincinnati, OH. Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Clark County Prosecutor’s Office. (2014). U.S. executions since 1976. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm Death Penalty Information Center. (2013). Facts about the death penalty. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet. pdf Dominus, S., & Hugo, P. (2014, April 6). Portraits of persecution. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/ 04/06/magazine/06-pieter-hugo-rwanda-portraits.html?ref=magazine&_r=0 Enright, R. D., Santons, M. J. D., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 99–110. Fox, G. L., Von Bargen, J., & Jester, M. (1996). Managing murder: Parents as mediators of children’s experience. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 732–757. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Gross, S. R., & Matheson, D. J. (2003). What they say at the end: Capital victims’ families and the press. Cornell Law Review, 88, 486–516. Janoff-Bulman, R., & Frieze, I. H. (1983). A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 1–17. Karp, D. A. (2001). The burden of sympathy: How families cope with mental illness. New York: Oxford University Press. Lauritzen, P. (1992). Religion and emotional transformation. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press. Madeira, J. L. (2010). Why rebottle the genie? Capitalizing on closure in death penalty proceedings. Indiana Law Journal, 85, 1477–1525. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Murder Victim Family Members McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. (1994). Models of interpersonal forgiveness and their applications to counseling: Review and critique. Counseling and Values, 39, 2–14.

Downloaded by [Bloomsburg University], [Leo Barrile] at 10:42 30 September 2014

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2010). Victims’ bill of rights. Retrieved September 13, 2010, from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName =DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32697 Pepinsky, H. E. (2006). Peacemaking: Reflections of a radical criminologist. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. Quinney, R. (1991). The way of peace. In H. E. Pepinsky & R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking (pp. 3–13). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Quinney, R. (1993). A life of crime. Criminology and public policy as peacemaking. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 3–9. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62. Sharp, S. F. (2005). Hidden victims: The effects of the death penalty on families of the accused. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Slone, N., & Barrile, L. G. (2007 March). Collateral victim responses to the last statements of executed offenders. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences annual conference, Seattle, WA. Strelan, P., Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. (2011). Retributive and inclusive justice goals and forgiveness: The influence of motivational values. Social Justice Research, 24, 126–142. Szmania, S. J., & Mangis, D. E. (2005). Finding the right time and place: A case study comparison of the expression of offender remorse in traditional justice and restorative justice contexts. Marquette Law Review, 89, 335–358. Takada, N., & Ohbuchi, K. (2013). True and hollow forgiveness: Forgiveness, motives and conflict resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24, 184–200. Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2014). Death row information. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_executed_offenders.html Tilly, C. (2006). Why? What happens when people give reasons and why. New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tilly, C. (2008). Credit and blame. New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press. Umbreit, M. S., & Vos, B. (2000). Homicide survivors meet the offender prior to execution: Restorative justice through dialogue. Homicide Studies, 4, 63–87. Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Martin, K. A. (2006). Facilitated dialogue on death row: Family members of murder victims and inmates share their experiences. In J. R. Acker & D. R. Karp (Eds.), Wounds that do not bind: Victim-based perspectives on the death penalty (pp. 349–375). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2006). Christian fundamentalism and support for capital punishment. Journal of Research on Crime & Delinquency, 43, 169–197. Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2012). The varying meaning of forgiveness: Relationship closeness moderates how forgiveness affects feelings of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 420–431. Zimring, F. E. (2003). The contradictions of American capital punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.

31