New DPRU-DPP report on victims’ experiences of capital punishment cases

On 23 September, the Death Penalty Research Unit (DPRU) and the Death Penalty Project (DPP) held an event in London to mark the launch of a new research report by recent Oxford DPhil graduate Dr Amelia Inglis. The publication, titled Procedural Trauma, the Illusion of Closure and Myth of Consensus: Understanding Victim Experiences in Capital Punishment Cases, builds on Dr Inglis’ DPhil research to address the common assertion that the retention of the death penalty serves the needs of victims of crime and their families. At the launch event, Dr Inglis shared the findings of her report in conversation with DPRU Director Professor Carolyn Hoyle, before taking questions from the audience during a Q&A moderated by the DPP’s Saul Lehrfreund.

The argument that the death penalty is necessary for retribution in response to serious crimes is a common justification for its retention, along with the arguments that the punishment deters serious crime; that public opinion would oppose its abolition; and that states retain the sovereign right to determine their own penal policy. The retributive justification is often based on the assertion that death sentences and executions have a unique role in providing healing and ‘closure’ for the victims of capital crimes, particularly for the families of murder victims (referred to in the report as ‘co-victims’). Yet there has been very limited empirical research into such claims, and Dr Inglis’ report addresses this important knowledge gap. 

Dr Inglis’ DPhil research focused on the experiences of the families of murder victims in the United States, where the criminal justice process in capital cases generally lasts for several years, if not for decades. She conducted a total of 34 in-depth interviews with co-victims and those with relevant professional experience, providing an important original empirical contribution to the field of death penalty scholarship. The new DPRU-DPP report presents Dr Inglis’ findings on the impacts of the capital punishment process on co-victims in the U.S., and situates this in the wider international context where possible.  

The report, intended as a tool for both policymakers and legal professionals, explores how the complex and protracted capital appeals process in the U.S. influences co-victims’ trajectories of grief and recovery, and offers insights into how co-victims navigate the landscape of the capital punishment process. In doing so, it critically examines two key assumptions underlying the retributive argument that capital punishment is beneficial for co-victims. The first of these is that the death penalty leads to therapeutic outcomes and so is necessary for healing. The second is that co-victims’ perspectives are fixed and unchanging, with all co-victims sharing the same view in support of capital punishment.   

Regarding the first assumption, Dr Inglis’ interviews in the U.S. suggest that capital punishment may fail to fulfil therapeutic objectives. In that context, the important role of procedural safeguards means that, as noted, capital proceedings can be extremely complex and protracted: on average, the process takes 19 years to complete, with delays of more than 30 years not uncommon. This means that co-victims who are engaged in legal proceedings can be locked into an extended ‘stasis’, feeling ‘stuck’ or ‘frozen’ and postponing their healing whilst awaiting a final outcome. Some co-victims expressed how their experiences of many years of appeals and re-trials had forced them to repeatedly revisit the most traumatic aspects of the murder of their relatives. Inglis concludes that rather than providing a source of healing for co-victims, the capital punishment process has the potential to re-traumatise and re-victimise them, prolonging their suffering and causing further harm. 

Regarding the second assumption, the report highlights the fact that co-victims are not a homogenous group, and their views on the death penalty are not fixed. While many of the co-victims interviewed by Dr Inglis had been supportive of the death penalty at the outset of the legal proceedings, many had since undergone a transformation in their beliefs and values. The possibility of such shifts is important, as this is overlooked in rigid narratives assuming that co-victims are necessarily proponents of the death penalty. With increased access to information and experience of legal proceedings, many co-victims’ positions evolved. Ultimately, some had become opposed to capital punishment, with increased support for restorative approaches where the death penalty was seen as unjust or unfair. These findings highlight the importance of listening to the diverse perspectives of co-victims, who are rarely provided with opportunities to express revised views.

Contrary to the retributive argument, the report finds that the promise of closure for co-victims is highly unlikely to be realised through the capital punishment process, specifically when set against the procedural realities of the appellate process. In fact, rather than seeking closure from an execution, in many cases interviewees expressed a desire simply for the legal process to conclude, giving a sense of finality: ‘judicial closure’. Those for whom legal proceedings had already concluded emphasised the importance of the end of this process in proceeding with their healing. In some cases, having remained engaged over many years, co-victims felt the need to disengage from legal proceedings. Methods of disengagement included choosing not to attend re-trials and executions, and ceasing to follow ongoing appeals and legal proceedings. Approximately half of co-victims interviewed had taken intentional steps to disengage or distance themselves, seeking judicial closure on their own terms. 

Dr Inglis’ report demonstrates that the death penalty can adversely shape experiences of the criminal justice process for those directly affected by serious crime: a critical finding which should inform discourse on penal policy in jurisdictions that retain the death penalty in their laws. She concludes that retributive arguments for capital punishment disregard the harmful effects the process can have on co-victims who, she suggests, can become ‘collateral damage’ of the process. She concludes that “rather than providing co-victims with closure or redress, capital punishment can create new harms, cause re-victimisation, and perpetuate co-victims’ anguish over years and even decades.” For abolitionist advocates, this report provides an important basis on which to challenge the retributive justification for the death penalty, in the U.S. and beyond, and highlights the need for further empirical research into the realities of the experiences of co-victims’ experiences of the capital punishment process. 

Dr Amelia Inglis’ new report, Procedural Trauma, the Illusion of Closure and Myth of Consensus: Understanding Victim Experiences in Capital Punishment Cases, is available to read on the DPP website.

Dr Amelia Inglis holds an MSc and DPhil in Criminology from the Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford. Her DPhil research examined how families of murder victims in the U.S. navigate grief and recovery amid the challenges of the capital appeals process. Amelia now works with StandOut as a coach at HMP Wormwood Scrubs, supporting men approaching release through building confidence, skills, and employability.