Procedural Trauma, the Illusion of Closure and Myth of Consensus: Understanding Victim Experiences in Capital Punishment Cases

One of the most deeply entrenched arguments in favour of capital punishment is the perceived demand for retribution by and for victims of crime and their families – ‘justice’ in the form of death sentences and executions. Much is at stake in this assertion of the value of retributive punishment, from the complex needs of victims in the aftermath of a traumatic event to an offender’s right to life and dignity.

This report, by Dr Amelia Inglis, challenges the argument that the death penalty serves the needs of victims of crime and their families. Her research asks: How are victims and their families impacted by the death penalty? How and why might their views on capital punishment change over time? The author’s original empirical research finds that the death penalty can in fact retraumatise victims and suggests their perspectives on capital punishment are not universally shared or static.