THE TWO BOYS LOST, RESPECTIVELY, A MOTHER AND AN ENTIRE FAMILY AT AGE 13, AND MURDERED RESPECTIVELY A PIANO TEACHER AND A NEIGHBOR. EACH BOY WAS GIVEN REGULAR INTERVIEWS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ONE-TO-ONE AND IN GROUPS. THE ARTICLE CLAIMS THAT LOSS OF A LOVED ONE REQUIRES A 'WORK OF MOURNING' IN WHICH MENTAL ENERGY INVESTED IN THE BELOVED IS REDISTRIBUTED. UNTIL THIS HAPPENS, PAIN OF LOSS REMAINS. IF REDISTRIBUTION IS PREVENTED, THE ENERGY BECOMES SUBMERGED AND REAPPEARS IN A DISGUISED FORM THAT HURTS THE BEREAVED AND HIS ADAPTIVE ABILITY; FURTHER, BOTH BEREAVEMENT AND PREVENTION OF MOURNING ARE ESPECIALLY HARMFUL IN ADOLESCENCE. NEITHER BOY RECEIVED ANY HELP IN HIS MOURNING WORK, AS ONE WAS OVERPROTECTED AND THE OTHER NEGLECTED AND REJECTED BY HIS FAMILY. IN BOTH CASES, THE SUBMERGED MENTAL ENERGY EXPLODED WHEN THE BOYS WERE AT LOW EMOTIONAL EBBS. EACH FELT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS MOTHER'S DEATH MIXED WITH ANGER AT HER DESERTION. THE EGO DEFENSE CALLED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF MOURNING WORK WAS DENIAL OF GRIEF AND ANGER, BUT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LATTER LED TO A BREAKDOWN OF DENIAL AND BOTH BOYS SOUGHT RELEASE FROM TENSION AND CONFLICT IN HOMICIDE. THE ARTICLE MAINTAINS THAT BOTH CHILDREN WERE BENEFITTING FROM PSYCHIATRIC CARE AND DID NOT REQUIRE INDEFINITE PRISON TERMS; IT CLAIMS THAT IN GENERAL MURDERERS CAN BE TREATED PSYCHIATRICALLY AND RELEASED WITH NO DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. SINCE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN ABANDONED, NEW STANDARDS FOR DIAGNOSING AND DEALING WITH MURDERERS, ESPECIALLY JUVENILES ARE NEEDED; INDEFINITE PRISON TERMS ARE CONSIDERED DETRIMENTAL TO REHABILITATION. IN THE CASE OF YOUNG MURDERERS, SINCE THE TRUTH COMES OUT SLOWLY, THEIR SENTENCES SHOULD BE PERIODICALLY REASSESSED. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (PAP)