"Why Rebottle the Genie?": Capitalizing on Closure in Death Penalty Proceedings

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
J. Madeira
{"title":"\"Why Rebottle the Genie?\": Capitalizing on Closure in Death Penalty Proceedings","authors":"J. Madeira","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1347844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Closure, though a term with great rhetorical force in the capital punishment context, has to date evaded systematic analysis, instead becoming embroiled in ideological controversy. For victims who have rubbed the rights lamp for years, inclusion in capital proceedings and accompanying closure opportunities are perceived as a force with the potential to grant wishes of peace and finality. Scholars, however, argue for rebottling the closure genie lest closure itself prove false or its pursuit violate a defendant's constitutional rights. In order to effectively appraise the relationship of closure to criminal jurisprudence, however, and thus to decide whether and to what extent closure is an appropriate adjudicative goal, it is necessary to more thoroughly investigate the concept and develop a theory of closure. This article provides an argument against rebottling the closure genie, a task not only seriously implausible but unsound under principles of communicative theory. Proposing that closure is an authentic cultural and communicative construct that has become indelibly linked to capital proceedings, this article advocates a shift in focus to more practical questions. This article first summarizes how legal scholarship has described closure up to this point, and then examines how courts utilize the rhetoric of closure to effect change for victims' families in a variety of contexts. It then reviews widespread scholarly opposition to utilizing criminal law to pursue therapeutic ends. Thereafter, this article seeks to broaden the contemporary understanding of closure by exploring how members of one victim population - Oklahoma City Bombing victims' families and survivors - have described closure in intensive face-to-face interviews. These reflections provide the foundation for theorizing closure as a communicative concept composed of two interdependent behaviors: intervention and reflexivity. While intervention is an interpersonal component that urges victims' families to take action to effect change and pursue accountability, reflexivity is an intrapersonal component that nudges them to contemplate and work through grief, emotion, and trauma after a loved one's murder. Finally, this article considers the pragmatic ramifications of applying a communicative theory of closure.","PeriodicalId":46974,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1347844","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Closure, though a term with great rhetorical force in the capital punishment context, has to date evaded systematic analysis, instead becoming embroiled in ideological controversy. For victims who have rubbed the rights lamp for years, inclusion in capital proceedings and accompanying closure opportunities are perceived as a force with the potential to grant wishes of peace and finality. Scholars, however, argue for rebottling the closure genie lest closure itself prove false or its pursuit violate a defendant's constitutional rights. In order to effectively appraise the relationship of closure to criminal jurisprudence, however, and thus to decide whether and to what extent closure is an appropriate adjudicative goal, it is necessary to more thoroughly investigate the concept and develop a theory of closure. This article provides an argument against rebottling the closure genie, a task not only seriously implausible but unsound under principles of communicative theory. Proposing that closure is an authentic cultural and communicative construct that has become indelibly linked to capital proceedings, this article advocates a shift in focus to more practical questions. This article first summarizes how legal scholarship has described closure up to this point, and then examines how courts utilize the rhetoric of closure to effect change for victims' families in a variety of contexts. It then reviews widespread scholarly opposition to utilizing criminal law to pursue therapeutic ends. Thereafter, this article seeks to broaden the contemporary understanding of closure by exploring how members of one victim population - Oklahoma City Bombing victims' families and survivors - have described closure in intensive face-to-face interviews. These reflections provide the foundation for theorizing closure as a communicative concept composed of two interdependent behaviors: intervention and reflexivity. While intervention is an interpersonal component that urges victims' families to take action to effect change and pursue accountability, reflexivity is an intrapersonal component that nudges them to contemplate and work through grief, emotion, and trauma after a loved one's murder. Finally, this article considers the pragmatic ramifications of applying a communicative theory of closure.
“为什么要给精灵装瓶?”:利用死刑程序的结束
结束语虽然在死刑语境中具有很强的修辞力量,但迄今为止还没有得到系统的分析,而是卷入了意识形态的争论。对于那些多年来一直在权利之灯下挣扎的受害者来说,被纳入死刑程序和随之而来的结案机会被认为是一种有可能实现和平和最终愿望的力量。然而,学者们认为应该重新定义“关闭”这个精灵,以免关闭本身被证明是错误的,或者对关闭的追求侵犯了被告的宪法权利。然而,为了有效地评价封闭性与刑法学的关系,从而决定封闭性是否以及在多大程度上是一个合适的裁判目标,有必要更深入地研究这一概念并发展封闭性理论。本文提供了一个反对重新装瓶封闭精灵的论点,这一任务不仅严重不合理,而且在交际理论原则下是不健全的。本文提出,封闭性是一种真实的文化和交际结构,与资本诉讼有着不可磨灭的联系。本文主张将焦点转向更实际的问题。本文首先总结了到目前为止法律学术是如何描述结束的,然后研究了法院如何利用结束的修辞来影响受害者家庭在各种情况下的变化。然后,它回顾了广泛的学术反对利用刑法来追求治疗目的。此后,本文试图通过探索一个受害者群体的成员——俄克拉荷马城爆炸案受害者的家属和幸存者——如何在密集的面对面访谈中描述结束,来拓宽当代对结束的理解。这些反思为封闭性作为一种由干预和反身性两种相互依赖的行为组成的交际概念的理论化提供了基础。干预是一种人际因素,它促使受害者家属采取行动来实现改变并追究责任,而反身性是一种个人因素,它促使他们在亲人被谋杀后思考和克服悲伤、情绪和创伤。最后,本文探讨了交际闭包理论在语用学中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1925, the Indiana Law Journal is a general-interest academic legal journal. The Indiana Law Journal is published quarterly by students of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law — Bloomington. The opportunity to become a member of the Journal is available to all students at the end of their first-year. Members are selected in one of two ways. First, students in the top of their class academically are automatically invited to become members. Second, a blind-graded writing competition is held to fill the remaining slots. This competition tests students" Bluebook skills and legal writing ability. Overall, approximately thirty-five offers are extended each year. Candidates who accept their offers make a two-year commitment to the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信