1. Matthew A. Knapp
University of Alabama

2. STUDIES ON THOSE WHO HAVE HAD A
FAMILY MEMBER DIE BY HOMICIDE
STUDIES ON THOSE WHO ARE SIGNIFICANT
OTHERS OF A HOMICIDE PERPETRATOR
 Qualitative : experiences of
survivors (2)
 Theory (5)
 Therapeutic Interventions
(3)
 Service Provision (3)
 Victim Impact Statements (2)
 Qualitative (experiences of
survivors) (5)

3.  Have skyrocketed since the early 1980’s
 Victim/Witness Protection Act of 1982
 Allows for Victim Impact Statement prior to
sentencing
 State and federal programs set up for referral,
counseling, and financial support
 Numerous human service agencies assist victims
(e.g. San Diego)
 Co-victims may begin or join support groups (e.g.
Parents of Murdered Children)

4.  May start/attend self help groups
 Private counseling
 Going to conferences
 Prison support (rare), involving funeral
arrangements, distribution of possessions, and
follow-up from professionals after execution
 Religiosity

5.  Sleeplessness
 Guilt
 Anxiety
 Fear
 Being ostracized from their community
 No opportunity to provide an Impact Statement prior to sentencing
 Possible loss/decrease in income
 Stress due to media exposure
 Isolation
 Increased stress in dealing with the perpetrator over time
 Prolonged, complicated grief (knowing the family member will die,
postponement due to appeals draws out process
 Relationship problems in the family unit

6.  Foucault and the “Panopticon”
 Shift from punishment of the body to control of the mind
 Treatment of perpetrator families may be less about overt actions,
more about the covert
 Denial or lack of existing formal services might = covert control
 Others in the community acting as “guards” between victim and
perpetrators families
 Community as Panopticon- discouraging families of perpetrators
from full participation in community

7. Goffman
 The Stigmatized Body
 Perpetrators families attempting to “pass”
 Being “found out” reinforces negative self-image
 Stress of “secret keeping”

8. FAMILIES OF VICTIMS: FAMILIES OF PERPETRATORS:
 Feel the homicide was
senseless
 Have profound alteration of
world view
 Seek justice through legal
system
 Rarely meet or speak with
perpetrators family
 Understand why their
family member received
death sentence-accept it
 Have less alteration of
world view
 Often want to speak with
and apologize to victim’s
family

9.  Experience feelings of guilt
 Feel shock and horror
 Anger
 Experience relationship problems in family unit
 Are stressed by media attention
 Report issues with Law Enforcement (manner of
death notification, and perceptions of “guilt by
association”)

10.  Allowing a form of VIS from the family of the
perpetrator prior to sentencing
 Using professionals who can work with both “sides”
(families) to facilitate communication between them
 Providing a separate space for perpetrator’s family to
regroup during trial and sentencing
 Providing for emotional and mental health concerns
before, during and after trial and sentencing
 Increased implementation of Social/Restorative
Justice options

11.  Both victims and perpetrator families have many
overlapping issues and experiences
 Literature on perpetrator’s family’s experiences was strong
in the 1970’s, disappeared after the Victim/Witness
Protection Act in 1982, and now is coming back in the past
few years
 Supports within a community differ dramatically
 Each “body” (of victim and perpetrator) is forever tied to
the respective families, maintaining social status
distinctions
 Witnessing an execution did little to provide closure to
families of homicide victims
 How homicide is viewed and addressed is a societal issue,
rather than simply an individual issue