??
No.
I think the two are very different.
Executions are partly meant to be punishment for a major crime - one could say they are a form of societal revenge.
In another sense, they are the cheapest and most effective way to get rid of people who are highly likely to keep offending.
I'm not sayingI approve of them - but i think those are the main reasons behind them.
Honor killings are primarily about controlling female sexual behaviour.
The males in a family are held responsible for the female's behaviour. If she strays it is their fault for having failed to control or supervise her. To recover their own honor they are expected to kill the female (though not the male involved.)
No. They are government's way of inflicting ultimate punishment for a crime.
I suppose you could draw a parallel insofar as the purpose of the killing in either instance is to deter others from repeating the same purported behavior of person being killed.
Execution = See, don't commit this type of crime!
Honor Killing = See, don't fool around like this person did!
Of course, we in a society where legalized killing is based upon formal jurisprudence, not family resentment, would like to believe the two forms of "justice" are fundamentally dissimilar, and in the abstract there are good arguments to support that view.
In the real world, I suspect that just as State-mandated killings fall disproportionately on people of low socioeconomic status, honor killings in socities where they occur happen far more frequently to low-status "villains" than to the rich and powerful.
Huh. I never looked at it that way before. I suppose in an abstract sense, perhaps. But, with honor killings, one person can be the judge, jury, and executioner and no consideration is given as to whether the person can be reformed or not. With American executions, there is a whole process, including a trial, before someone can be sentenced to death. It's not just about whether that person "made us look bad." They were deemed guilty of a heinous crime and were considered a risk to the public.
I went to school with a girl who got pregnant. I was already a mom at the time, so she came to me and was asking questions about what it felt like to be pregnant and such. She later told me she was going to have an abortion. I was very pro-life at the time, and I tried to get her to reconsider. She shut me down. She said "My dad will kill me." Given my limited cultural knowledge at the time, I took this to be the American version of being "killed" by one's parents. Grounded for life, yelled, at, scolded, etc. No. Her family believed in honor killings and her dad really would have killed her. That is nothing like the justice system.
Most honor killings have zero honor. How blasphemous to use that word when the most dishonorable act is to kill someone because they betrayed some imagined law you feel they have to adhere to because they had the misfortune of being a born into a tribe that treats them like indentured slaves. Executions may have some merit if the offender actually committed a proven offense so odious as to be determined death-worthy. Like butchering a child or two.
Honour killing is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, when the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community, normally by (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to certain people or (b) engaging in certain sexual acts. These killings result from the perception that defense of honour justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonor their clan or family. Honor murders are very common among Muslims.[1]
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honour-killing victims may be as high as 5,000.[2]
@DJAM -- I happen to agree with you and think "honor" killings are despicable.
That being said, I think we have to recognize just how important "honor" is in some cultures. The term "honor" as we Westerners understand it is a misnomer in those cultural contexts. A better term of translation might be "public regard" or "public image," and in some cultures NOTHING is more important than maintaining one's personal public image and/or that of the accepted social/family unit.
That doesn't justify "honor" killings in my view, but it does help us understand why they occur, and how we might go about getting cultures which tolerate the practice to stop allowing it.
Note: this isn't exactly parallel but it is illustrative. During the US occupation of Iraq, US forces sought to arrest suspected insurgents by doing SWAT-style bust-the-doors-down raids of residences where the insurgents were thought to be. The problem was such raids damaged the "honor" of the male head of the household, who was then almost obligated by his social norms to attack US forces as revenge for despoiling the "honor" of his household. If he wasn't an insurgent before, the raid turned him into one.
Eventually, US forces learned and instead of busting down doors they would block all exits, knock politely, and be gentle but firm with residents about staying still while US troops searched for suspects. If a suspect was found, the troops would express their gratitude for the family's cooperation. If no suspect was found, the troops would profusely apologize for acting on bad information and beg forgiveness for the intrusion. Either way, the troops would give the family a little baksheesh (money) as a goodwill gesture for intruding upon them and bothering them.
Similarly, I don't think we can eliminate "honor" killings by saying, "Bad People. Stop it!" I think we need to find a way to say, "See, here's a way to resolve the dispute without having to bicker and argue about who kills who" that replaces honor killings.
Hi OS. I know what you are saying and it is very important to note what you did say. It is hard for us to realize how rustic some cultures still are compared to the sophistication of our own. In order to survive, many of these peoples came up with tactics to keep the family and their inner circle STRONG and a betrayal could cause some harm the likes of which we cannot fathom. I guess if the father chooses a husband and the daughter rejects the choice, that is considered the ultimate unforgivable betrayal for a reason. Maybe it keeps them safe to follow these dictates.
So, when they are exposed to our modern culture, or worse, the media that speaks for this culture, they are totally misunderstood. TOTALLY.
I like your second example regarding proper etiquette regarding searching for insurgents, and I think you are right. It kind of amazes me that they wouldn't have just treated the innocent in this polite manner to begin with, but at least America got a clue and changed their tactics so the man of the house could keep face.
However, honor killings have been taken into the 21st Century in America now and there are Forensic File TV shows depicting evil aholes taking advantage of this custom and really abusing it.
They are using their kids, mostly daughters and wives as chattel to dispose of as they see fit or not. I'm sure that happens a lot in 3rd world countries. This abuse of power. It does not bode well for them and modern man coming to a peaceful understanding. Modern man is not as open-minded and you and I are trying to be.
And yet, to try and understand the reasons why these customs were initially instilled into a culture makes my heart soften a tad. It was a necessity in all cultures just a few hundred years ago. I guess it is all they knew. You did not go against your kin or you could get your head busted.
I think I might just stop responding. You say it so much better than I do.
It's deeper, clearer and more thorough.
