Closure and Justice: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives From Homicide Survivorship Experts

Abstract

The criminal justice system and the media perpetuate the rhetoric of closure, which frames the end of grief for homicide survivors, or murder victims’ loved ones, as an attainable goal on their path to healing. Public discourse has also framed the death penalty as justice for survivors. However, little scholarly attention has addressed survivors’ experiences and perceptions of closure and justice. This research addresses this gap in the literature using in-depth, qualitative interviews with 36 community, academic, and criminal justice experts on homicide survivorship, 12 of whom are homicide survivors themselves. Using grounded theory, we derived six themes on closure and justice from the data. The majority of respondents indicate that survivors do not experience closure, and that they consider the term misleading. The question as to the meaning of justice produced more disparate responses. While many indicated that justice has unique meanings for individual survivors, holding the perpetrator accountable emerged as the most common theme. Half of the respondents also indicated that justice does not exist in homicide cases because of their difficult experiences with the criminal justice system. The findings have implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life‐changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

“…Fifty‐three studies (represented by 61 articles) were eligible for inclusion in this review (see Figure 1). 18–78 …”

“…Forty‐one studies (represented by 47 articles) were prioritised for framework synthesis 18–20,22,23,25,27,29–32,34–36,38,39,42–44,47–61,63–65,68–78 . The most common countries where studies were conducted included the United States of America ( n = 12), 27,30,31,38,39,43,51,52,58,59,64,68,71,72 Australia ( n = 8) 19,22,29,34–36,41,54,61,65,69,74 and the United Kingdom ( n = 9) 18,20,25,48,55,57,76–78 . Adverse events occurred within following fields: medical ( n = 31), 19,23,31,32,34–36,43,44,47–60,63,65,68–72,74–78 homicide ( n = 3), 27,30,38,39 sexual abuse ( n = 2), 22,29,64 employment/work‐related death ( n = 2), 42,61 death in custody ( n = 1) 25 and suicide ( n = 2) 18,20 .…”

“…The most common countries where studies were conducted included the United States of America ( n = 12), 27,30,31,38,39,43,51,52,58,59,64,68,71,72 Australia ( n = 8) 19,22,29,34–36,41,54,61,65,69,74 and the United Kingdom ( n = 9) 18,20,25,48,55,57,76–78 . Adverse events occurred within following fields: medical ( n = 31), 19,23,31,32,34–36,43,44,47–60,63,65,68–72,74–78 homicide ( n = 3), 27,30,38,39 sexual abuse ( n = 2), 22,29,64 employment/work‐related death ( n = 2), 42,61 death in custody ( n = 1) 25 and suicide ( n = 2) 18,20 . The majority of medical studies focused on the disclosure phase of the justice‐seeking process ( n = 17) 19,32,34–36,43,48,51,53,54,56–58,65,68–72,74,75 …”

Still no bodies: Five years of “no body, no parole” in Queensland, Australia

“…Closure discourse is a potent rhetorical device for politicians wanting to justify victim-oriented policies (Bandes, 2009; Berns, 2011; Walklate, 2012) despite a lack of consensus about how to define closure or even whether closure exists (Berns, 2011; Saco & Dirks, 2018). Adopting a closure narrative promises that finding out what happened to their loved one's remains, or seeing the punitive effect of denying parole in circumstances of unsatisfactory cooperation, might assist families to find some closure (Berns, 2011; Quinney et al, 2022; Saco & Dirks, 2018). However, many co-victims do not find closure and there are concerns that closure should not be held out as attainable because of the risks of extended grief and psychological harm (Bastomski & Duane, 2019).…”

“…The political rationale for NBNP laws introduced a new discourse around parole by drawing heavily on the rhetoric of closure for families (see New South Wales Government, 2017; Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory, 2017; Parliament of Victoria, 2016). Closure discourse is a potent rhetorical device for politicians wanting to justify victim-oriented policies (Bandes, 2009; Berns, 2011; Walklate, 2012) despite a lack of consensus about how to define closure or even whether closure exists (Berns, 2011; Saco & Dirks, 2018). Adopting a closure narrative promises that finding out what happened to their loved one's remains, or seeing the punitive effect of denying parole in circumstances of unsatisfactory cooperation, might assist families to find some closure (Berns, 2011; Quinney et al, 2022; Saco & Dirks, 2018).…”