Swift, Severe, and Certain

Throughout my research involving 'Victim Outreach', I've come across statements regarding "harsh" penalties. In many circumstances, simply the sense of feeling that their case is receiving the harshest penalty that exists is all that is needed. Margaret Vandiver explains this by writing, "Any sentence lighter than the maximum provided by law runs the risk of seeming to indicate that the criminal justice system, or society in general, did not properly value the victim's life or comprehend the magnitude of the family's loss".

So I bring up the question[s] of the day. If the death penalty didn't exist, and an offender was sentenced to the most severe penalty of LWOP, wouldn't the family members feel justified? The problem with that today would be that we know the death penalty does and can exist, but whether it should has yet to be determined. Our system is principled on a 'code'. A code that says it [the system] is to be swift, severe, and certain. It's easy to tell that this isn't always the case when it comes to crime. So, if we're striving for a system of swiftness, shouldn't we revise the system? LWOP allows the family members to end their involvement with the criminal justice system, whereas a sentence of death drags out the process. Afterall, isn't it all about the victim families? It's easy to say, and I think most everyone would agree, that the murderer deserves to die, but does that mean that they should die? If the death penalty exists, doesn't that pressure surviving members to support the punishment simply because it is the most severe? How can we be certain?
...support a moratorium!