I would like to add to
instantkarma's rather good and well-presented write-up on this subject. The only reason I even searched and found this node title is because I was listening to NPR a few minutes ago. On the phone they had a retired reverend who resides at the death house in
Texas. Reverand Carroll is the guy that gives the
last rites and counsels those who are to witness executions, who are usually the
survivors of the prisoner's
victims. He's seen many reactions to executions. Some people say that the prisoner didn't suffer enough, since lethal injections are supposed to be painless. Others say that seeing a man die did not in any way
help with the grieving or rebuilding process. Many say the obvious, that what they've just seen cannot bring their loved ones
back from the grave.
This man also questioned the issue of yet another execution whose popularity and media appeal have once again raised the issue of public executions. If we are required to legitimize the reasons rallying for public access to executions, we need to pay attention to men like Carroll, who have already seen what public executions do and don't do to the witnesses. Any person who wants to see an execution for the sheer shock and illusive gore associated with murder won't be given audience, but in truth, this is why people want to see executions. They want the killer of their loved ones to die in ways we cannot legitimize in our country. They want to see him beheaded, shot, pulled apart by lions. They want to see him suffer like they've suffered, even though no punishment, even death in any form, can equate their sorrow.
I guess I just wish people would admit their darkest side in these hours, that they would be honest with us as they are among themselves, in the kitchens and living rooms they sit in days before the execution. I simply cannot believe that the victims' families are not as evil in their thoughts for the killer as the killer was for their loved ones.
But no one, seeking to witness an execution, would list this in their plea, because they know it would be shot down; it would be the excuse the court is looking for to not show the execution to anyone. Even if these people sincerely believe that they want only to seek closure from the incident, witnesses to this act have already stated that, from their press releases after the executions, very little that just occured seemed to have promoted any healing.
These families are given something many other families who lose loved ones to occurences like freak accidents, drowning, floods, hurricanes, and other natural occurances are not: one person or a group of people onto which they can aim all of their hurt, pain, anguish, sleepless nights, nightmares, and harshest sentiments. Are they somehow better off because they at least know who caused their pain? I don't think so. Grief is dealt with every day, and it is best dealt with community, communication, and time. Nothing speeds up or ends grief; it is worked out in its own time, sometimes never completely leaving. That's part of life too. Anyone who has lost someone before it was believed their time had come deals with that loss as best as they humanly can.
I bet you anything that however the Timothy McVeigh execution is finally handled, the people who see it will not be any more affected (in a positive way that promotes healing) than if they'd just stayed home. It's already been raked through the coals in the media. These people have already probably been told and heard more than they care to, and if they think this last act will do anything to quench the fire lit from the first press release of the bombings, I have to say I don't buy it. If they want to commemorate their loved ones, build a memorial, if there hasn't been one already built (which I doubt). How can they think that by appearing for yet another press release that their loved ones will be any more remembered by the world than they already are? How can they trust that this will have any different effect? And if they do, aren't we simply condoning the act of dwelling on unchangeable facts, aren't we encouraging the lag in a natural grieving process?
As far as using public executions as a form of rehabilitation, I don't think that's a valid excuse either. It may have worked in the 50's or 60's, when violence wasn't so commonplace on the TV sets in our homes. Now it's just too late. We'll have to go back to thinking for ourselves and stop relying on images to sway us to the right decisions.