A sexual assault survivor attends trial and describes the attack in detail, then receives a pamphlet listing counseling resources with months-long waitlists. A parent whose child was killed waits years for the case to conclude, experiencing each court delay as renewed trauma with no therapeutic support to navigate the process. Someone victimized by a violent crime receives excellent medical care for physical injuries but no follow-up for nightmares, hypervigilance, and inability to return to normal life. A victim qualifies for state compensation that covers property loss but not the therapy needed to feel safe again. Crime creates psychological wounds that often outlast physical ones, yet the systems designed to address crime rarely treat emotional healing as central to justice. Whether providing comprehensive psychological support is a core justice system responsibility or lies beyond its scope and resources remains deeply contested.
The Case for Treating Trauma as Inevitable and Addressable
Advocates argue that crime creates predictable psychological harm that the justice system has an obligation to address. Trauma responses, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress are not weaknesses but normal reactions to abnormal events. Victims who receive prompt, skilled therapeutic support recover better and faster than those left to cope alone. Peer support from others who have experienced similar victimization provides validation and practical guidance that professionals cannot always offer. From this view, a justice system that prosecutes crimes but ignores the psychological devastation they cause addresses only half the harm. Victim services should include immediate crisis counseling, ongoing therapy as needed, trauma-informed practices throughout legal proceedings, and connection to peer support networks. The cost of providing these services is far less than the long-term societal cost of untreated trauma: unemployment, substance abuse, relationship breakdown, and sometimes victims becoming offenders themselves.
The Case for Boundaries and Responsibility
Others argue that while psychological support is valuable, expecting the justice system to provide comprehensive mental health care exceeds its mandate and capacity. The justice system exists to enforce laws, prosecute offenders, and protect public safety. It is not a mental health system. Therapy, counseling, and long-term psychological support are healthcare matters that should be addressed through medical systems, insurance, or general social services, not as specialized victim services within justice budgets. Most people experience trauma at some point, from crime, accidents, illness, or loss. Creating separate, extensive support systems specifically for crime victims while others with similar needs go unserved seems arbitrary. From this perspective, victims should have the same access to mental health services as anyone else, but the justice system's role is ensuring those who harm them face consequences, not becoming their therapists.
The Timing and Coercion Dilemma
Victims need different things at different stages. Immediate crisis support may help some while overwhelming others who need time before processing trauma. Mandatory counseling requirements in some victim compensation programs presume that seeking help is always beneficial and that all victims should follow the same path. Some find peer support invaluable while others prefer privacy. Requiring victims to engage with services in order to access other benefits creates coercion in the name of help. Yet without some structure, many who would benefit from support never access it, whether from stigma, lack of awareness, or simply being too overwhelmed to navigate systems while coping with trauma.
The Question
If psychological harm from crime is as real and significant as physical harm, does justice require addressing it, or does that conflate criminal justice with healthcare in ways that serve neither well? When resources are limited, should funding prioritize prosecuting more cases or supporting fewer victims more comprehensively? And if trauma-informed care improves both victim recovery and justice system function, why does it remain the exception rather than the standard approach?