icide. People who kill cause extreme suffering to others and that suffering needs to be acknowledged. But can that justify the state's impos ition of such extreme, debilitating suffering? Because it is recognized as such a cruel as well as ineffective form of punishment, the death penalty has been outlawed by every developed country except the United States and Japan. Further, the U.S. is one of but five countries in the world which continues to sentence juveniles to death. Can we bear the moral cost of taking a life, especially under conditions that cause such intense suffering? Does the death penalty help victims? The families and friends of murder victims have intense and legitimate needs, most of which are overlooked by the criminal justice process as well as by opponents and proponents of the death penalty. Victims' loved ones need to know that what has happened to them is tragic, unfair and wrong. They need to be released from blame and to feel vindicated. They need people who will listen patiently, accept them and their feelings for what they are, who do not blame, judge or stigmatize them. They need opportunities to express their anger and to mourn. They need compensation for the damages and burdens caused by the offense. They need the right to information about the case and the right to participate in their own case. They need to be provided necessary services. They need to be freed from worry that this will happen again. Above all, they need to come to the point where their tragic loss -- which can never be forgotten -- no longer dominates their lives. The needs of families and friends of murder victims deserve much more consideration than we have given them. But are these needs really met effectively by killing someone else, by causing another family to be wrenched by grief and pain, by adding to the cycle of violence and vengeance? Does the death penalty heal or does it leave a bitter hate-filled legacy that is incompatible ...
