Seven years ago, D.C. and the surrounding area was in a state of fear because of the sniper roaming around shooting people randomly. It a was disturbing time. People changed their routines and habits until the shooters were caught.
Tonight, the mastermind behind the shootings, John Allen Muhammad, was executed. It's a little weird because, although no one I know was killed or injured by Muhammad and his sidekick, Lee Malvo, my friends and I were impacted by their reign of terror in the fall of 2002. Everyone talked about it -- we'd all been to one or more of the places where the shootings had taken place at one time or another.
As with any execution, there's been extensive discussion about the pros and cons of the death penalty. To me, that is not the act of a truly civilized society. An article in today's Washington Post looked at the death penalty's "'closure' myth":
Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes that the theory that executions provide closure is "naive, unfounded, pop-psychology." Contrary to expectations, Spiegel says, witnessing executions not only fails to provide closure but also often causes symptoms of acute stress. "Witnessing trauma," he says, "is not far removed from experiencing it."It just seems craven for politicians to promise "closure" from the death penalty when it's not true. It also seems barbaric.
Spiegel has concluded that "true closure is achieved only through extensive grief work." This process requires families to acknowledge and bear their loss as well as to put it into perspective. It necessitates a network of support systems: counselors who will sit with, listen to and work with survivors; work environments flexible enough to accommodate counseling sessions and the down time that is a natural result of grief and stress; and victim assistance programs that make sure those things happen.
