Honour killings (no spam)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:21 pm

A "honour killing" is the murder of a relative in order to upheld the honour of the family. To simplify, the idea is that acts that disrupt the family's honour, can be "nullified" by killing one or several of the involved persons as a special form of blood revenge.

The majority of the victims of honour killings are women, but men can also get killed for instance for making a girl belonging to a higher social class pregnant, or for homosexuality. The perpertraitors of honour killings are the family of the victims, mostly the male relatives but female relatives may also participate. The actual killing often contain ritualistic features that may include torture. In some countries and regions, honour killings are viewed as socioculturally acceptable and thus, are not punished or hold significantly milder punishment than other cases of murder.

Some information can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3829139.stm

Outside of the geographical areas where honour killings are practised as a tradition, a majority of people think honour killings are wrong. The disagreements usually start with in which context to view the act, and how to view the consequences. In Sweden, where I live, there are currently three main viewpoints:

1. The cultural relativist position: Honour killings should be viewed in the cultural context of the perpertraitors and victim/s and thus, they may be less severely punished than an ordinary killing. This view calls for understanding and respect for other cultures' customs and traditions.

2. The feminist position: Honour killings are an extreme expression of the patriarchal power structure and should be treated as a "hate crime" against women. This would call for a harsher punishment than an ordinary killing in consistency with the harsher punishment Swedish law has for so called "hate crimes" where the victim's ethical or religious group identity or sexual orientation is the main motive for the killing.

3. The "unloaded" position: a killing is a killing regardless of cultural or other context. There is no extra loading in honour killings that calls for neither harsher nor milder punishment than in any other killing.

An additional problem is that many countries, including Sweden, has no jail sentence for underage perpertraitors of crimes. This has led to an increase in underage family members admitting and taking full responsibility for the crime. The same pattern has been observed in Turkey, who recently introduced harsher punishments for honour killings.

So, how do you view honour killings? Do you adopt any of the above mentioned viewpoints? Do you have another viewpoint, if so what? How do you think this type of violent crime should be dealt with?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:19 pm

Still murder.

I would never subscribe to it. Killing relatives just because they "dishonored" the family is not in any way valid or justified in my opinion.

Sure, there may well be shame involved, but then again, I still believe that the family should be the first one to come to the aid of one that has strayed.

As for the issue of it being a cultural thing, I say, the law that pervades in that place should still treat it as homicide if not murder. The only time I think that the perpetrators can get away with it, is when the community and government themselves subscribe to it.

Personally, I don't approve of such.

Zelgadis · Post by **Zelgadis** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:14 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]1. The cultural relativist position: Honour killings should be viewed in the cultural context of the perpertraitors and victim/s and thus, they may be less severely punished than an ordinary killing. This view calls for understanding and respect for other cultures' customs and traditions.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I'm a cultural relativist, kind of.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:31 pm

[QUOTE=Zelgadis]Yep, I'm a cultural relativist, kind of.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so let me take a real example:

Example 1. A 20-year old boy starts a relationship with a girl the same age. The girl's family dissapproves because the boy is from a lower class family than their family. The girl and the boy love each other and run away from town. They engage in secret, planning to marry. During a long phone call, the girl's mother pretends to accept their relationship and promise that they can marry if they just return home. The young couple trust her. When they return, the girl is sedated with a potent drug that makes her sleep all night and in the meanwhile, the boy is killed by her family.

Example 2. A 20-year old boy starts a relationship with a girl the same age. The girl has previosly been together with another boy, whom she has broken up with. Upon hearing the girl has a new boyfriend, the ex decided to let the new boyfriend pay. The ex gangs up with some friends and is waiting outside the new boyfriend's house one night. The new boyfriend is killed.

Would you suggest different sentences to the perpertrators in these cases?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:06 pm

I'm so much against it, and the concept stirkes me as so "1000 year ago" type of mentality. Sure there are the cultural differences, but that will never make me accept honor killings.

I'm so glad that a danish high court (the verdict has been appealed to the danish supreeme court which can only alter the sentence and not the guilt question) have given harsh sentence for the latest honor killing in Denmark.
Almost everybody involved got several years of prison from the person who pulled the tricker to the cabdriver who helped drive the murder around.
I hope this sends a signal that it is not something we want in a (danish) modern society, because even these people who subscripe to honor killing don't see it as honorable that half their family is thrown in prison.

Honor killing is barbaric and arcaic and has no place in any society. Honorkilling ... yeah, right - there is honor in killing some defenceless (woman).

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:57 am

I've talked about this with some of my friends before and I still claim this discussion has two sides.

One is concirning the view on it and in it I am in the camp number 3 here, the way you put them. It is murder, and should be treated as such. Personally I do not think that any special significance should be granted to it because as such we diferentiate between this and any other murder, giving it something 'extra'. In a court of law, for me, murder, and should be treated as any other.

Now the other part of the argument is what to do about it. IMO, this kind of unbiased look of the law is one of the ways to go in explaning that there is no difference, no justification in it, but that it is murder, vile as any other. But that is just one little thing. In general, I do agree that it is or rather should be a thing of the past, and is a relic of the past, so dealing with it is essential - I still say education goes a long way in dealing with these things, schools turning out socially aware children because you discuss things like these - we did in our social studies and psychology (sp?) classes in highschool - and more public awareness of it which would in turn get us to the core and that is a family that considers this acceptable. If we have young individuals that due to all I mentioned beging to doubt about the acceptability of this practice and then pass the doubt along to their kids it will go a long way to solving this and eradicating it. But it has to be a concentrated effort by societies to identify the problem and deal with it, or it'll keep happening.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:44 am

While under Australian jurisdiction, I would in no way see honour killing as a complete defence, or even a penalty-reducing defence. While I do believe in a reduced punishment for provocation, that only extends to spur of the moment decisions, that a normal person would do. I disagree with honour killing because not only is it murder, but as CE suggests at one point, murder of someone technically innocent. This kind of action, if encouraged, just leads to more violence.

However, as I said at the start, under Australian jurisdiction. BUT if such a practice was a custom of an Aboriginal tribe,, and this was shown to be a tribal issue with proper justification, then I would be perfectly happy with the murderer being set free. Well, not perfectly happy, but I would accept the decision. This is because we invaded this place to 'civilise' (never understand how blowing the original inhabitants to shreds is civil), they were here first and their law is dominant in their situations.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:01 am

To me, murder is murder regardless of the reasons for it taking place. For this reason I do not agree with honour killings at all, but I can see why they may arise. People have difficulty coping with things they do not understand, and thus may see them as shameful. They take this personally and want revenge. It happens everyday, but not to the extreme of murder. Its just sometimes easier to take the 'easy option' when you don't agree with something or don't understand something, rather than simply try to make the effort to accept it or understand it. I'm not saying murder or honour killings are necessarily an 'easy option', I just think that sometimes the most difficult thing to do is to just talk to someone and try to understand where they are coming from so you can maybe learn to accept it or at least cope with it.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:16 am

Neither of CE's examples really coincide with the description she gave. Neither case involves a family killing one of their own. The victim and the killers in both your scenarios are unrelated. So how would either of those be anything but murder? If it was a honour killing, wouldn't the family have killed the daughter? Anyway, I really don't think that western society has the right to force ideologies on people in places where things we disagree with are accepted but in a country where it is not, I think it should just be viewed as murder.

I could just be misunderstanding who the "victims" are in the Romeo and Juliet scenario.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:45 am

In my view, culture never overrides the basic human rights of the individual. And few rights can be as basic as the right to life and security of person.

In fact, the family committing the crime is in my view an aggravating circumstance, just as it would be for any crime in which someone in a position as caregiver or a position of authority abuses that position to commit a crime.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:31 am

As "basic" as those rights seem, you have to remember that they're still just attributes of our cultural ideologies. Not all societies place the same emphasis on the individual and so the individual's rights are few, if any. Jefferson may have said that all men are equal and that each has inalienable rights, but both of these statements are deeply rooted in Western philosophical tradition.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:45 pm

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Neither of CE's examples really coincide with the description she gave. Neither case involves a family killing one of their own. The victim and the killers in both your scenarios are unrelated. So how would either of those be anything but murder? [/QUOTE]

I should have clarified this point. Usually, a "honour killing" is the killing of a relative, but it can also include the killing of a person (in this case, the boy) who is viewed as having disrupted the family's honour. Normally, not only the boyfriend but also the young girl in case 1 one would also have been killed by her own family, but she is now under police protection with new identity and at secret location. Other examples of honour killings not targetted only towards familiy members include rape, in case of which both the rapist and the victim can be killed by the family of the victim and infidelity, in which case both an unfaithful woman and the man she was unfaithful with may be killed by the woman's or the betrayed husband's family. The core of honour killings is not really that the victim must be a relative although it usually is, the core characteristic is that the killing is done in order to restore the family's honour and therefore, is not viewed as a crime.

[quote="Lestat]
In my view"]
[quote="Snoop]
As "]

Like Lestat, but contrary to Snoop, I hold the position of moral realism and I believe an objective moral system holds the least problems and the largest advantages to most people. Human rights as the right to survive, do not necessarily need to be derived from Western individualistic ideology, then can also be derived from more community-based ideologies.

Snoop seems to take a relativism position, but the question is to what degree. A complete relativism position would claim that for instance the European colonisation of Africa was not wrong, since it was right according to the values of the colonising culture. Likewise, it would claim that slavery could be equally right and wrong since it is right if it is right according to one culture, and at the same time wrong if it is viewed as wrong according to another culture.

So where, if anywhere, do you draw a line, Snoopy?

The same question goes to DJ Venom of course regarding the cultural values vs rights.

[quote="Xandax]
I'm so glad that a danish high court (the verdict has been appealed to the danish supreeme court which can only alter the sentence and not the guilt question) have given harsh sentence for the latest honor killing in Denmark.
Almost everybody involved got several years of prison from the person who pulled the tricker to the cabdriver who helped drive the murder around.
I hope this sends a signal that it is not something we want in a (danish) modern society"]

I am also very glad Denmark did a firm statement, and I am very sad Sweden did not in the case I described as example 1 above. The father and the mother were released, only the now 18-year old brother who claimed responsibility for the murder, was sentenced to 4 years care in Youth psychiatry since he was underage, 17, when the crime was committed. The forensic evidence shows that the body had injuries from boiling oil, knives and other instruments, and that the injuries could not have been caused by one person alone. Witnesses have reported the father had discussed and expressed his desire for a honour killing of the young couple at several occations, and that there was no other people except the father, mother, brother and the girl and murdered boyfriend, in the flat. It is also proven that the mother served tea with a sedative drug to the daughter, and the mothers' fingerprints was on the empty oil bottle. The mother also had burning injuries on her arms and hands, which she claimed came from cooking earlier the same day. Sadly however there was no technical evidence to associate any of the parents with the killing, so they could not be convicted.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:29 pm

Well, for me, I believe completely that Aboriginal claims beat ours anyday, based on the case of Mabo, which defeated the fallacy of terra nullius. However, while this case paved the way for others like it, criteria was set for the precendents to follow. To establish a land as a particular tribes, you had to show two things:
1) That you had a strong spiritual/cultural link with the land; and
2) That you are retaining the land and those cultural values

Now, parts of Australia where white Australia never moved (areas in the middle to the west of Australia, involving South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory) then allowed tribes to claim that as their own. As a result, Aboriginal law claims power there, and they cannot be charged under our laws, so long as they stay within the criteria.

This is simply because, I don't believe it is right, and neither did the High Court in their decision, that us invading on the belief the land was vacant allowed us to colonise/control the original inhabitants.

That said, I do find some very distasteful things currently occuring (this is going to slightly off topic). In fact, there was recent coverage of some of the things going on in the tribe areas, including sexual assaults, and other such acts. However, in Aboriginal law, this is acceptable. People wanted the government to step in, however years ago they did that and we're still paying the price for the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation"]Stolen Generation[/url] (that link covers it).

So if it is a culturally accepted practice, in an area where that culture is dominant, and rightfully so with sufficent justification, then I would accept it occuring, though once again, I don't agree with it.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:20 am

[QUOTE=dj_venom]So if it is a culturally accepted practice, in an area where that culture is dominant, and rightfully so with sufficent justification, then I would accept it occuring, though once again, I don't agree with it.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I think it's unacceptable. I do not think respect for culture can negate a person's rights as determined under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not say that this declaration is the only way human rights can be defined (and I even do disagree up to certain point with the rights it includes) but it's the best we have. Any attempt at determining any universally valid human rights, will have to based on the individual, since it's through the individual humans we get to the shared humanity of us all, not through cultural & religious customs, which are what differentiates us. Moreover, while individual humans can possibly exist without culture or religion, they in their turn cannot exist without human individual. Cultures and religions are fleeting and changeable, while the shared humanity of all humans is far less so. For me any right a religion or culture has derives from the rights the human individuals that constitute it and so any right or custom that it tries to impose that would go against the basic human rights of people inside or outside it would be necessarily invalid.

And since those rights would have to be based on the individual and we accept that no individual is worth more than another, we also have to except that each and every individual has those rights, whatever culture or religion he or she lives in.

I do not know what would be the solution for the problem with Australian and aboriginal jurisdiction, but accepting sexual assault or manslaughter to go unpunished is not the way to go. I do think there must be solutions: maybe Australian courts could intervene when and only when basic human rights are clearly violated and apart from that I see no wrong with exerting pressure on tribal councils or such to bring their systems into line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (note: not into line with Australian principles but with Universal principles).

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:19 am

It's a very touchy issue. I haven't made up my mind completely, so I won't be passionate for my particular stance. But there are heaps of problems with Aboriginal Australia, such as racism which occurs, the fact that many people from the outback areas become addicted to drugs, which is why those areas are considered 'dry', and the misunderstanding that has occured.

The other problem that exists (that I only partially alluded to) was that some of the victims are children. Now, you can ask a mature adult if they accept the culture and the way of life, and so be it. The problem is with children. It's up to their parents/guardians to decide. If they have a problem with what occurs, then they can receive help, remove themselves from Aboriginal jurisdiction and be placed back into Australian jurisdiction. Of course there is the problem of how they can leave, when it's not as if they have cars, and sadly, jumping in a kangaroo's pouch isn't a mode of transport. One thing is sure, it's not right to go in there and stomp all over thousands of years of history and culture, when it simply looks bad from our pespective. (and one thing regarding the children, in Australia you are a child until 18, in that culture, the age may vary, possibly being regarded an adult at 10 etc)

Dowaco · Post by **Dowaco** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:50 am

In the United States, where "honor killing" is not a valid defense for murder, the penalty should be the same for the two scenarios given. That being the death penalty for a premeditated 1st degree murder. In both cases, accomplices might be given leniency for testifying against the trigger puller but all should do major jail time.

Ironically, I believe that people here understand the motives for a gang murder more than the honor killing and are less repulsed by it if that make any sense, even though both are the taking of a innocent life. Evil gang members killing a boy is regrettable but heck, they are evil right? Upstanding citizens deciding to kill a boy who has done nothing wrong is uncomprehendable to most people.

In another country with a different culture, people can make their own laws and penalties and I don't think others should interfere. If those laws or actions impinge on people outside of that country, then the world community should step in. The point for stepping in will be different for mass genocide vs one at a time killings but that is what the UN is for. I think sanctions in the form of reduced trade or loss of financial aid is appropriate to apply pressure to countries who do not conform to basic Human rights policies.

If the people of a country are OK with how they live then let them be. If they themselves are unhappy then they should change the laws or move out.

Zelgadis · Post by **Zelgadis** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:16 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Ok, so let me take a real example:

Example 1. A 20-year old boy starts a relationship with a girl the same age. The girl's family dissapproves because the boy is from a lower class family than their family. The girl and the boy love each other and run away from town. They engage in secret, planning to marry. During a long phone call, the girl's mother pretends to accept their relationship and promise that they can marry if they just return home. The young couple trust her. When they return, the girl is sedated with a potent drug that makes her sleep all night and in the meanwhile, the boy is killed by her family.

Example 2. A 20-year old boy starts a relationship with a girl the same age. The girl has previosly been together with another boy, whom she has broken up with. Upon hearing the girl has a new boyfriend, the ex decided to let the new boyfriend pay. The ex gangs up with some friends and is waiting outside the new boyfriend's house one night. The new boyfriend is killed.

Would you suggest different sentences to the perpertrators in these cases?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't suggest different punishments for them, because I jdge them by my cultral and moral values. But that doesn't mean I condemn someone else for having a differing view on it.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:58 pm

[QUOTE=Dowaco]Ironically, I believe that people here understand the motives for a gang murder more than the honor killing and are less repulsed by it if that make any sense, even though both are the taking of a innocent life. Evil gang members killing a boy is regrettable but heck, they are evil right? Upstanding citizens deciding to kill a boy who has done nothing wrong is uncomprehendable to most people.[/QUOTE]

Murder with numbers is usually given a harsher penalty (well, life is mandatory for murder, but the opportunity for parole will be decreased), much like any crime were more numbers are used (eg. robbery, assault etc).

Then you get accessory in the 1st principle, second principle and accessory before and after the fact.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:36 am

[QUOTE= C Elegans] Snoop seems to take a relativism position, but the question is to what degree. A complete relativism position would claim that for instance the European colonisation of Africa was not wrong, since it was right according to the values of the colonising culture. Likewise, it would claim that slavery could be equally right and wrong since it is right if it is right according to one culture, and at the same time wrong if it is viewed as wrong according to another culture.

So where, if anywhere, do you draw a line, Snoopy? [/QUOTE]

You are correct about all of your points about relativism. I don't draw the line anywhere except when I'm drawn into the conflict. Every human has the right (because they have the ability) to exclude every other human's values, perception of reality, ect. You can't, with any authority except that which is afforded by strength, tell another culture how their ideologies should be. What about the human right to kill? And yes some community based ideologies stress individuality, others will without hesitation sacrifice the individual for the group.