The article reviews closure in death investigations, focusing on bereaved families and coroners, suggesting a reevaluation of closure language.
This article reviews the concept of “closure” in the context of death investigations. It focuses on the experiences of bereaved families and justice system professionals, and on inquests undertaken by coroners under the Anglo-Canadian-Australasian model. The article shows the promise of closure figures prominently in coronial rhetoric: that the function of an inquest in facilitating closure has become an orthodox aspect of the promotion of the therapeutic advantages of coronial investigations. It then outlines the problem of closure as a concept, most particularly as an emotional expectation. There is a widely held view that the justice system can help provide closure for people who have suffered violent loss. Yet closure as a construct is amorphously defined: there is no agreement among researchers about what it is, whether it exists or, if it does exist, how it can be achieved. This article suggests that closure language should be avoided in the context of death investigations. Such language carries with it the counter-therapeutic potential to create unrealistic expectations regarding what inquests can accomplish, including through coroners’ findings and recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rossmanith et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: