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

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.