J Forensic Sci, September 2015, Vol. 60, No. 5 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12786 Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com
PAPER PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
Eyyup Yilmaz,1 M.D.; Nergis Canturk,2 M.D.; Zerrin Erkol,3 M.D.; Bahadir Kumral,4 M.D.; and Ali M. Okumus,5 Ph.D.
Customary Homicides in Diyarbakir Province*
ABSTRACT: This study presents an analysis of the causes of so-called honor killings in the context of “customary homicide” and a discus-
sion of preventive measures. Finalized case files of customary homicide between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 were retrospectively examined in Diyarbakir Province, Turkey. Of a total of 28 case victims, 17 (60.7%) were females and 11 (39.3%) were males. All perpetrators were male. There was a significant difference between male and female victims in terms of economic independence (p = 0.000). A direct blood relationship or relationship by marriage (such as brother-in-law) was found to have a significant association with the gender of the victim (p < 0.001). Multilevel educational activities targeting a transformation of the perception of women by society, replacement of patriarchal models with more modern attitudes, and encouragement of individuality may represent effective strategies that may help reduce the number of customary homicide, which represents a multifaceted problem.
KEYWORDS: forensic science, behavioral sciences, violence, homicide, custom killings, honor killings
Custom is defined as a totality of habitual practices and behaviors that are followed by people of a particular group or region and/or passed down within a group or society (1,2). Honor is an altogether more abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness, honesty, and respectability that affects an individual’s social standing and self-evaluation (1,3). The concept of custom means unwritten law rules which regulate the humans’ lifestyle, behaviors, habits of a society, and moral attitudes. Therefore, custom is not only a determinant of behavioral models but may also imply enforcement in case of disobedience in certain societies (4,5). Homicide is the severest of such enforcements. Honor killing within the context of custom is defined as the murder of an individual (either male or female) by family members driven by the perpetrators’ belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family or community. The reasons are often for being in an unsanctioned relationship or having sex outside of wedlock (6,7). Homicide, therefore, is believed to remove the blemish from the family (7). However, failure to act accordingly results in the potential perpetrator being ostracized, accused of cowardice, dishonorableness, and even incompetence (8). As found in some parts of Turkey, and many other places in the world, custom 1 Council of Forensic Medicine, Diyarbakir Group Presidency, Diyarbakir, Turkey. 2 Department of Criminalistics, Institute of Forensic Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara 06540, Turkey. 3 Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey. 4 Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Namik Kemal University, Tekirdag, Turkey. 5 Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor of Diyarbakir, Diyarbakir, Turkey. *Presented at the Forensic Sciences Spring Symposium, May 8–11, 2014, in Marmaris, Turkey. Received 25 Feb. 2014; and in revised form 2 July 2014; accepted 13 July 2014.
© 2015 American Academy of Forensic Sciences
dictates that women not engage in sexual activity before marriage and demonstrate fidelity after marriage. Typical reasons for custom killing include engagement in a relationship that the family disapproves of, giving birth to an illegitimate child, deserting the spouse for another person, and premarriage pregnancy (9). In certain locations, such as along the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa, and in other Islamic countries, custom killings are more common (10,11). The difference between individual cases of honor killing and custom killing is that the former is usually carried out by an individual acting alone, whereas the latter involves a common decision to commit murder made by family members (12). According to Turkish Criminal Justice Law, Item 82, Subitem K, an “aggravated sentence of life imprisonment” is to be handed down for customary homicide that has arisen from a family decision (13). In this study, customary homicides were analyzed in the context of a discussion on preventive measures. Materials and Methods A search for customary homicides within a total of 9961 finalized cases heard by the Diyarbakir Criminal High Court between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 revealed 28 customary homicides (0.28%). These cases were retrospectively evaluated in terms of the perpetrator and victim’s gender, age, marital status, occupational status, and educational status, the place of homicide, motives, methods, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, the month and the day of homicides. SPSS 16.0 software was used for statistical analyses. Results Of the 28 files, 18 (64.3%), three (10.7%), and seven (25%) had been finalized in the first, second, and third Diyarbakir Criminal 1241
1242
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
High Courts. In four of the files, there were two perpetrators charged with murder, and in two files, there were three perpetrators charged with murder, resulting in a total of 36 perpetrators. For two perpetrators, the case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Thus, the study focused on 28 victims and 34 perpetrators. All perpetrators were male, while 17 (60.7%) of the victims were female, and 11 (39.3%) were male. The age range of the victims was 15–57 years with a mean age of 26.93 (SD, 10.55 years). The corresponding figures for perpetrators were 15–54 years and a mean age of 30.29 (SD, 10.29 years) years. Of the victims, four (14.3%) were children (between 15 and 18 years old), with two 15 years old (7.14%) and two other (7.14%) 17 years old. Four of the perpetrators (11.76%) were also in the child age group (between 14 and 18 years old), with one case (2.94%) being 14 years, one (2.94%) 15 years, and two (5.88%) 16 years old. Table 1 shows the age distribution in the perpetrator and victim groups, with no significant age difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). When the victims were examined in terms of their marital status, it was seen that of the 11 victims who were unmarried, one (9%) was divorced. Of the three cases with a religious marriage, one (33.3%) had a traditional “berdel” religious marriage (“berdel” is a practice whereby two families “exchange” women by arranging simultaneous marriages between daughters and sons from each family). Of the 12 victims who had a religious marital status, three (25%) were murdered by their husbands. Of the five victims with a civil marriage status, three (60%) were murdered by their husbands. Of the perpetrators, 14 (41.2%) and nine (26.4%) had civil or religious marital status, respectively, while 11 (32.3%) were unmarried. One of the perpetrators with religious marital status had a “berdel” marriage. When the victims were examined in terms of their gender and occupation it was seen that of the 17 female cases, 10 (58.8%) were housewives, six (35.3%) were unemployed, and only one (5.9%) was worker. Of the 11 male cases, four (14.3%) were farmer, three (10.7%) were shopkeeper, two were (7.1%) worker, and two were (7.1%) unemployed. There were significant differences between the groups of occupational and gender distribution (p = 0.001). Housewives and unemployed women were considered economically dependent. From an economic dependence viewpoint also, there were significant differences between male and female victims (p = 0.000). TABLE 1––Age distribution among victim and perpetrator groups.* Perpetrator Age Groups Victim Age Groups
14–18 years
19–29 years
30–39 years
40–49 years
≥50 years
Total
15–18 years % 19–29 yeasr % 30–39 years % 40–49 years % ≥ 50 year % Total %
1 2.9% 2 5.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 4 11.8%
3 8.8% 8 23.5% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 35.3%
1 2.9% 6 17.6% 4 11.8% 1 2.9% 1 2.9% 13 38.2%
1 2.9% 1 2.9% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 8.8%
0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 2 5.9%
6 17.6% 18 53% 6 17.7% 3 8.8% 1 2.9% 34 100.0%
*A cross-table was made for a total of 34 perpetrators and 28 victims with the addition of one victim for each perpetrator in the table, resulting in a total of 34 victims. There was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05).
Of the perpetrators, 12 (35.3%) were farmers, 10 (29.4%) were shopkeepers, six (17.6%) were unemployed, three (8.8%) were drivers, two (5.8%) were workers, and one (2.9%) was a student. Nine of the perpetrators (26.5%) were illiterate, while others had some degree of education, although no detailed information could be obtained as to the level of education. Two perpetrators (5.9%) were ex-convicts. Eighteen (64.3%) of the murders were committed in the center of Diyarbakir Province, seven (25.0%) in a village, and three (10.7%) in a district center. The murders were committed at home in 15 cases (53.6%), on the street in seven (25.0%), in the countryside in four (14.2%), one (3.6%) in the workplace, and one (3.6%) in a hotel. Among the homicide causes, 12 (43%) were emotional relationship, six (21%) were rape, three (11%) were molestation, three (11%) were lifestyle, two (7%) were virginity, and two (7%) were gossip related. And among the homicide methods, 13 (46%) were penetrating/crushing trauma, five (18%) were general body trauma, five (18%) were strangulation, three (11%) were gunshot wounding, and two (7%) were poisoning. The distribution of homicide’s causes according to gender is as follows: While in 20 female victims, 10 (35.7%) were emotional relationship, three (10.7%) were rape, three (10.7%) were molestation, two (7.1%) were lifestyle, one (3.6%) was virginity, and one (3.6%) was gossip related; in eight male victims, three (10.7%) were rape, two (7.1%) were emotional relationship, one (3.6%) was lifestyle, one (3.6%) was virginity, and one (3.6%) was gossip related with no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). Also, there were no significant differences in homicide’s methods according to the victim’s gender (p > 0.05). Of the victims, four (11.8%) and three (8.8%) had civil or religious marital status, respectively. Four victims (11.8%) were cousins, six (17.6%) were sibling, one (2.9%) was nephew, one was daughter, three (8.8%) was uncle-in-law, three were sisterin-law, and two (5.9%) were brother-in-law, of the perpetrator. The other seven (20.6%) were killed by individuals with no blood relationship. A significant blood or in-law relationship of the perpetrator with the victim was significantly associated with the victim’s gender (p < 0.001), where all female victims were murdered by relatives or in-laws. Of the seven (20.6%) male victims, there was a blood or an in-law relationship with the perpetrator. In the other seven male victims, no such a relationship existed between the victim and perpetrator, and the male perpetrator in these cases murdered the male victim who had an indiscreet affair with a woman who is perpetrator’s relative or relative-in-law. In 13 incidents (38.2%), the perpetrators escaped the crime scene; while in 11 incidents (32.4%), the perpetrators surrendered to the police. In nine (32.14%) incidents, perpetrators exhibited a number of different actions such as taking the victim’s corpse to the countryside, burning the corpse, taping the mouth of the victim closed, or attempting to give an impression of suicide by hanging. In one case (2.9%), the perpetrator lost consciousness at the crime scene. When the distribution of homicides by months was examined, it was seen that two (7.1%) homicides were realized in January, whereas two (7.1%) were in February, five (17.8%) were in April, two (7.1%) were in May, four (14.2%) were in June, two (7.1%) were in July, one (3.5%) was in August, two (7.1%) were in September, four (14.2%) were in October, and four (14.2%) were in November. And when the distribution of homicides by days, it was seen that four (14.2%) were Monday, four (14.2%) were Tuesday, three (10.7%) were Wednesday, four
YILMAZ ET AL.
(14.2%) were Thursday, six (21.4%) were Saturday, and two (7.1%) were Sunday. There are no significant distribution differences for month of the year and day of the week (p > 0.05). The perpetrators were sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 4.20 years to aggravated life imprisonment. Excluding cases of aggravated life imprisonment, the average duration of prison terms was 15.68 years (SD, 6.62 years). Twenty perpetrators (58.8%) were sentenced to aggravated imprisonment, while four were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. Perpetrators received reduced sentences for a variety of reasons including being underage (< 18 years), probable unjust provocation, positive attitudes, and behaviors during the trial, confession, and admission, etc. Discussion Honor or customary killings occur in many countries, mostly in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa (10,12,14). According to a report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) in 2000, throughout the world, approximately 5000 women or girls were killed by family members within the context of a honor killing (15). Undoubtedly, every society has its own customs and moral laws, which are obeyed to different degrees. Although custom and rules represent integral elements of societal unity, custom plays an authoritative role in patriarchal societies (10). According to data from the Turkish General Directorate of Security, the total number of honor killings and customary homicides is between 200 and 250 per year (16). Cakir et al. examined the case files from Penal Department 9 of the Turkish Supreme Court between 1995 and 2000. They concluded that honor killings and customary homicides comprised 8% of all homicide cases (17). A relatively larger surface area and population of Turkey implies the co-existence of different sociocultural groups that may exhibit contradictory social attitudes (12). Also, higher levels of economic development and modernization in western Turkey result in internal migration. Data from the Turkish General Directorate of Security show that the predominant birthplace for perpetrators of honor and customary killing is eastern and southeastern regions of Turkey (12,16). Similarly, a 2008 report by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council pointed out a higher frequency of such incidents in larger provinces with high population density such as Diyarbakir, which receives a high level of internal migrants (fourth in Turkey in this regard). Other associated major contributory factors are poor accommodation, lack of education, unemployment, poverty, and crowded families. Almost half of all perpetrators were reported to be born in eastern or southeastern regions, where traditional patriarchal family structures prevail (18). Our study was conducted in Diyarbakir, which is one of the southeastern region states. Other studies have suggested that customary homicide is more common in rural or urban areas, especially in eastern or southeastern regions, that are more densely populated with ethnic Kurdish or Arab Turks (10,12). Our findings showed that 64.3% of all homicides were carried out in the provincial center of Diyarbakir. Previous studies suggested that customary homicide is not a phenomenon restricted to villages, but also can be seen in large or small cities, with an influence of internal immigration on customary homicides (10). In southeastern region, Turkey, religious marriages, polygamy, fellow wives (signifying the mutual relationship between wives from a civil marriage and religious marriage), berdel, and consanguineous marriage often lead to a secondary position for
.
CUSTOMARY HOMICIDES
1243
women in these societies, making it easier to justify and rationalize violence against women in the eyes of the perpetrators and paving the way to honor killings (10). While an emphasis is placed on honor in many faiths, the vast majority of the population in Diyarbakir is Muslims. However, homicide in the name of honor or custom is not acceptable according to Islam (8,19). In a study of Bagli, 58.4% and 32.6% of all the victims of custom homicide were found to be females and males, respectively, with both sexes involved in 7.4% of the incidents (7). In our study, 17 of the victims (60.7%) were female, while 11 (39.3%) were male. Most of the published work examining customary homicide underlines the theme of violence against women and describes customary homicide as the “killing of a woman who inflicted a blemish upon the honor of the family, tribe, or society (10,12,20). In the aforementioned Report on the Customary Homicide and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council, it was stated that not only females but also males are the victims of such crimes (18). Certainly, customary homicide generally results from the supposedly inappropriate and therefore suppressed expression of a woman’s sexuality. However, this expression requires the involvement of both sexes, thus resulting in the punishment of not only the woman, but also man, as shown by our findings. Most cases in our study involved a relationship between the victim and perpetrator. In only 20.6% of cases, such a relationship was absent and all the victims were males, resulting in a significant effect of such relationship on the incidence of customary homicide (p < 0.001). This latter finding can also be viewed as evidence for an attempt to protect the honor of the family through female sexuality. All perpetrators in our study were males. A study of Bagli shows that males carried out the majority (90.5%) of customary homicides, while females either play an instigator role or kill their husbands (7). Cakir et al. proposes that the term “honor” directly implies female’s sexuality in such societies, where the responsibility of “protecting” honor therefore lies with males, resulting in a higher number of male perpetrators in this type of homicide (17). The age distribution in the victim and perpetrator groups was similar, and the presence of children or teenagers in both groups may be considered as an indicator of the “mercilessness” of the practice. In our study, 11.7% of perpetrators were children. According to the Report on Customary and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council, 9% of perpetrators were children and most were between the ages of 19 and 35 years (18). In our study, 73.5% of perpetrators were between 19 and 39 years of age. Several previous studies have examined the association between the months or seasons of the year and the number of traumatic deaths (21–25). In our study, while there were more murders on Saturday, the difference compared with other days of the week was not significant. Also, homicides were recorded in all months except for March and December (p > 0.05). Of all victims, 43% had religious marital status compared with 26.4% of perpetrators. Religious marriage without legal marriage is prohibited by Item 230 of the Turkish Criminal Justice Law and is subject to two- to six-month imprisonment (26). In a study of Bagli, 3.4% of the perpetrators of customary homicide were married according to the previously explained practice of “berdel” (7), indicating the low level of education and the prominence of tradition of our victim and perpetrator cases. Again, poverty, traditional lifestyle, socioeconomic underdevelopment, and ignorance have all been proposed as the main motives
1244
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
behind customary homicide (27–29). TV series depicting tribal life also have been found to influence society by fictionally justifying customs, tribal life, and honor killings (30). Women who are economically dependent are inevitably an inseparable part of patriarchal life (31). In this study, only one female victim (3.6%) was worker, while the rest were either unemployed or housewives and were therefore in state of complete economic dependency. Similarly, male victims did not have a high-level socioeconomical background, with 7.1% being unemployed at the time of the incident. However, statistical assessments showed a significant difference between male and female victims in terms of the level of economic independence (p = 0.000). Of all homicides in our study, 15 (53.6%) were carried out in the home. Demirci et al. (32) reported that of all homicide cases involving the use of a shotgun, 54% occurred in the home. These observations represent a good example for the fact that violence within a close community such as family mostly occurs in the home environment (33). Some examples of women’s behavior that has led to a customary homicide include going to a movie, holding hands with another man, showing the husband “due respect” (not doing the things her husband wants, not obeying his wishes, going out of the house during daytime, wearing tight jeans, not adjusting her behaviors according to her husband’s ideas), and requesting a song from a radio station (34). These are similar to motives observed in our study, with a high proportion (42.9%) being due to disapproved emotional relationships. Even in case of rape, the woman in question can be the subject of an honor killing (12). Of the five killings due to rape in our study, three victims were females, and in the three killings due to molestation, all victims were males. According to results reported by Ozdemir et al., (35) honor killings realized by strangulation method comprised 34% of all murders. In our study, 46.4% of victims (13 cases) died as a result of penetrating or penetrating–crushing type of trauma. Firearm injuries are one of the most common using homicide methods (36,37). In our study, three homicides (10.7%) were resulted from firearm injuries. Customary homicide is known to occur more commonly in rural societies than in industrialized communities. The isolated social life of rural societies generally exhibits patriarchal characteristics, where women’s honor is not considered an individual attribute but rather part of the honor of the family and community. In such communities, even in the absence of a blood relationship, individuals have mutual obligations (10). In a study of Bagli, of the 190 cases charged with customary homicide, 15.8% were reported to be farmers (7), as compared to 35.3% (12 cases) in our study. In Bagli’s study, 8.9% of the perpetrators were illiterate (7), whereas we observed a higher proportion of illiterate perpetrators in the current study (i.e. 26.5%). The Report on Customary and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council suggests that lower educational status plays a major role in this type of homicide both for the victim and perpetrator (18). This is in line with our findings, which showed that nine perpetrators (26.5%) were illiterate. Of the perpetrators in our study, two (5.9%) were ex-convicts. The perpetrators were sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 4.20 years to aggravated life imprisonment, with an average sentence of 15.68 years (SD, 6.62 year) when those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment are excluded. Twenty perpetrators (58.8%) were handed down aggravated imprisonment, and four got aggravated life imprisonment.
In a study of Bagli (7), the reported duration of imprisonment ranged between 3.5 and 40 years, with an average of 17.24 years (SD, 6.92 year), similar to our findings. In nine cases (32.14%), perpetrators were involved in several crimes, such as taking the victim’s corpse to the countryside, burning the corpse, taping the mouth of the victim, or giving trying to make the murder appear to be suicide. As customary homicides are the result of a common decision by family members, perpetrators are generally chosen among younger males to benefit from reduced sentences for minors; an attempt is made to give a false impression of suicide; or the victim is forced to commit a suicide (38). Zeren et al. (39) describe the case of a dyadic death who appeared to have committed suicide in the same car due to the social pressure of custom. The effect of custom on such suicides cannot be ignored (40). The major obstacle in the prevention of customary and honor killings is the belief by family and community members that such homicides are not real crimes, but are in fact the sole method to remove a perceived blemish on the family and that the perpetrator is a “social hero” (12). In a public survey in Diyarbakir involving 787 individuals, 26% of participants stated that honor is a valid reason for homicide, while 26.6% approved a family decision for punishment in such cases (41). In Bagli’s study, 47.9% of the perpetrators of customary homicide or honor killings did not express regret, and a positive reaction was given by the family members in 42.1% of cases, implying approval of the idea that “what needed to be done was done” (7). Similar opinions were expressed in the Report on Customary and Honour Killings Report, emphasizing the inadequacy of more rigorous punishment as a deterrent due to the absence of remorse (18). In our study, 11 perpetrators (32.4%) chose not to flee the crime scene and instead surrendered to the authorities, again suggesting they held the belief that they acted appropriately. Honor killings committed in the context of custom represent a multifaceted problem. These kind of homicides are on the rise worldwide (42). Shahien Taj, from the Henna Foundation, said: “Honour is supposed to be a positive word. Clearly, calling a killing an ‘honour crime’ is a contradiction of terms” (43). Honor killings have been reported in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, and the United Kingdom, according to the 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights (42). Every year between 25 and 50, women and girls are the victims of “honor” killings in Jordan. A Jordanian girl of 12 was intelligent and full of curiosity. But when she returned home one evening from a walk in the neighborhood with some friends, she was confronted by her enraged father. Shouting that she had dishonored the entire family, her father proceeded to beat her with sticks and iron chains until she was dead. He told police he killed his only daughter because she went for walks without his permission. About the same time, another woman, 34, was shot dead by her brother for the “crime” of marrying a Christian. Her brother left her body in the street and smoked a cigarette while he waited for the police to arrive (44). The 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights says that “honor” killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis (42). None of the world’s major religions condone honor-related crimes. But perpetrators have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds. However, it is a very strong cultural issue. Leaders of the
YILMAZ ET AL.
world’s faiths have also strongly denounced a connection between religion and honor killings (43). Although there is increased awareness of this issue, states remain reluctant to take the necessary steps to end impunity for honor killings. For example, although the Supreme Court of Brazil struck down “defense of honor” as a justification for murder of a wife in 1991, ten years later, courts still fail to prosecute and convict men who claim they kill their wives because of their alleged infidelity (45). Turkish Criminal Justice Law No. 5237 sets forth a severe aggravated life imprisonment for customary homicide. However, due to social pressure and the possibility of imprisonment, families often coerce younger males to commit the crime and thus benefit from a reduced sentence. Families also make the murder appear to be suicide, and perpetrators are largely considered to be “heroes” by their community. Furthermore, perpetrators are welcomed and respected by other inmates upon incarceration. These observations suggest that regulations involving the laws may be inadequate in terms of providing a disincentive effect. However, we believe that sentences should be reduced; indeed inflicting the maximum punishment may still provide a disincentive. Also, the role of education in transforming the perception of woman in society cannot be denied. A concerted effort involving different parties, such as nongovernmental organizations, universities, the media, and government institutions, may help increase awareness of this issue. In conclusion, it is clear that the countries where honor killing is seen most widely are mainly agricultural countries like Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, India, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Uganda, and Turkey. Therefore, when the transformation from an agricultural to an industrialized society is completed, individuals place more importance on their own values and beliefs than to those of society, resulting in a different understanding of “honor”, one that does not involve emotional–romantic–sexual experiences. Acknowledgments Many thanks to the following members of the Presidential Council of Diyarbakır Criminal High Court for their valuable contributions to this study: Hayati Karaaslan, Mustafa Kahveci, and Mustafa Yilmaz. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (accesssed April 8, 2013). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom (accessed February 25, 2014). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour (accessed February 25, 2014). TBMM (Turkish Grand National Assembly) parliamentary research commission report on the honour crimes and violence against women and children. Ankara, Turkey: TBMM Publishes, 2006. Hancerlioglu O. Dictionary of sociology. Istanbul, Turkey: Remzi Bookstore, 1996;388. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/showthread.php?t=8905 (accessed April 8, 2013). Bagli M, Ozensel E. Honour and custom homicides in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Destek Publishes, 2011. Efe A. Honour killings in the light of the authority of executing punishments according to Islamic law. Sakarya Univ J Facul Theol 2011;24 (2):105–19. Tezcan M. Turkey’s honor killings. Ankara, Turkey: Natural Publications, 2003. Yılmaz BO. Tradition behind deaths: honour killings. J Women’s Stud 2012;8:69–86. Kulczycki A, Windle S. Honor killings in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review of the literature. Viol Again Women 2011;17 (11):1442–64.
.
CUSTOMARY HOMICIDES
1245
12. Ince HO, Yarali A, Ozsel D. Customary killings in Turkey and Turkish modernization. Middle East Stud 2009;45(4):537–51. 13. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=3913 (accessed April 08, 2013). 14. Hadidi M, Kulwicki A, Jahshan H. A review of 16 cases of honour killings in Jordan in 1995. Int J Legal Med 2001;114(6):357–9. 15. United Nations Population Fund. The state of the world’s population 2000: lives together, worlds apart: men and women in a time of change; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english (accessed April 8, 2013). 16. Aktas E, Vural E, Celik Y, Kose T. Honor killings in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: General Directorate of Security Department of Public Security, Public Security Directorate, 2006. 17. Cakir R, Yavuz MF, Demircan YT. Honor killings in Turkey. J Forensic Med 2004;18(3–4):27–33. 18. Prime Ministry of Turkey, Human Rights Presidency, honor killings report. Ankara, Turkey: TBMM (Turkish Grand National Assembly) Publishes, 2008. 19. Zaidi S, Ramarajan A, Qiu R, Raucher M, Chadwick R, Nossier A. Sexual rights and gender roles in a religious context. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;106(2):151–5. 20. Bilgili N, Vural G. The heaviest way of violence against women: honor killings. J Anatolia Nurs Health Sci 2011;14(1):66–72. 21. Ambade VN, Hemant Vasant Godbole HV, Kukde HG. Suicidal and homicidal deaths: a comparative and circumstantial approach. J Forensic Leg Med 2007;14(5):253–60. 22. Mde LRG. Trends in mortality from homicide in Medellın (Colombia): 1975–2003. Gac Sanit 2005;19(3):238–41. 23. Sanchez R, Tejada P, Martinez J. Patterns of violent death in Bogota 1997–2003. Rey Salud Publica (Bogota) 2005;7(3):254–67. 24. Tiihonen J, Rasanen P, Hakko H. Seasonal variation in the occurence of homicide in Finland. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:1711–4. 25. Mohanty MK, Kumar TSM, Mohanram A, Palimar V. Victims of homicidal deaths – an analysis of variables. J Clin Forensic Med 2005;12:302–4. 26. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=5178 (accessed April 8, 2013). 27. KAMER.“For avoid saying wish” about the name of honor homicides 2004 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2004. 28. KAMER. “In the fight against permanent methods development project in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia region under the pretext of honor killings” 2005 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2005. 29. KAMER. “If you want it ends” murders in the name of honor 2006 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2006. 30. Mora N. Media and cultural identity. Int J Human Sci 2008;5(1):1–14. 31. Kardam F. Killing in the name of honour, or suicide. In: Akın A, editor. Gender, health and woman. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University Publications, 2003;249–62. 32. Demirci S, Dogan KH, Gunaydin G, Koc S. Deaths with shotgun. Acta Turcica Online Thematic J Turkic Stu 2009;1(1):206–12. 33. Cechova-Vayleux E, Leveillee S, Lhuillier JP, Garre JB, Senon JL, Richard-Devantoy S. Female intimate partner homicide: clinical and criminological issues. Encephale 2013;39(6):416–25. 34. Kerestecioglu IO, editor. Womans social position in Turkey: achievements and problems. In: Berktay F, edit€or. The position of woman in Turkey and in the European Union: achievements, problems, and prospects. Istanbul, Turkey: KA-DER, 2004;35–55. 35. Ozdemir B, Celbis O, Kaya A. Cut throat injuries and honor killings: review of 15 cases in eastern Turkey. J Forensic Leg Med 2013;20 (4):198–203. 36. Koc S, Sam B, Yilmaz R. Forensic medical aspects of shotgun injuries. Acta Turcica Online Thematic J Turkic Stu 2009;1(1):213–27. 37. Heide KM. Matricide and stepmatricide victims and offenders: an empirical analysis of U.S. arrest data. Behav Sci Law 2013;31(2):203–14. 38. Yildiz MC. The custom murders and suicides dependent on custom compulsion in Turkey. Abant Izzet Baysal Univ Grad School Soc Sci J Soc Sci 2008;16(1):209–31. 39. Zeren C, Kiriktir E, Arslan MM. Dyadic death due to family custom in marriage. Dicle Med J 2012;39(2):306–9. 40. Coskun M, Zoroglu S, Ghaziuddin N. Suicide rates among Turkish and American youth: a cross-cultural comparison. Arch Suicide Res 2012;16 (1):59–72. 41. Batun I, Polat O. A knowledge, attitude, behavior studies implemented on 787 people about honor killings in Diyarbakir. In: Ulman YI, Artvinli F, editors. Bioethics in a changing world. Istanbul, Turkey: Turkish Bioethics Association, 2012;218–24.
1246
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
42. “Honour” killings. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html (accessed June 1, 2014). 43. Honour-based violence in the UK. In: Honour crimeshttp:// www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml (accessed June 1, 2014). 44. Two “honour” killings in Jordan; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/boxes/box20.html (accessed June 1, 2014). 45. Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective: violence against women and “honor” crimes; http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2001/04/05/item-12-integration-human-rights-women-and-genderperspective-violence-against-women (accessed June 1, 2014).
Additional information and reprint requests: Nergis Canturk, M.D. Department of Criminalistics Institute of Forensic Sciences Ankara University Tip Fakultesi Cebeci Yerleskesi Adli Bilimler Enstitusu, Dikimevi Ankara Ankara 06540 Turkey E-mail: [email protected]
PAPER PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
Eyyup Yilmaz,1 M.D.; Nergis Canturk,2 M.D.; Zerrin Erkol,3 M.D.; Bahadir Kumral,4 M.D.; and Ali M. Okumus,5 Ph.D.
Customary Homicides in Diyarbakir Province*
ABSTRACT: This study presents an analysis of the causes of so-called honor killings in the context of “customary homicide” and a discus-
sion of preventive measures. Finalized case files of customary homicide between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 were retrospectively examined in Diyarbakir Province, Turkey. Of a total of 28 case victims, 17 (60.7%) were females and 11 (39.3%) were males. All perpetrators were male. There was a significant difference between male and female victims in terms of economic independence (p = 0.000). A direct blood relationship or relationship by marriage (such as brother-in-law) was found to have a significant association with the gender of the victim (p < 0.001). Multilevel educational activities targeting a transformation of the perception of women by society, replacement of patriarchal models with more modern attitudes, and encouragement of individuality may represent effective strategies that may help reduce the number of customary homicide, which represents a multifaceted problem.
KEYWORDS: forensic science, behavioral sciences, violence, homicide, custom killings, honor killings
Custom is defined as a totality of habitual practices and behaviors that are followed by people of a particular group or region and/or passed down within a group or society (1,2). Honor is an altogether more abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness, honesty, and respectability that affects an individual’s social standing and self-evaluation (1,3). The concept of custom means unwritten law rules which regulate the humans’ lifestyle, behaviors, habits of a society, and moral attitudes. Therefore, custom is not only a determinant of behavioral models but may also imply enforcement in case of disobedience in certain societies (4,5). Homicide is the severest of such enforcements. Honor killing within the context of custom is defined as the murder of an individual (either male or female) by family members driven by the perpetrators’ belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family or community. The reasons are often for being in an unsanctioned relationship or having sex outside of wedlock (6,7). Homicide, therefore, is believed to remove the blemish from the family (7). However, failure to act accordingly results in the potential perpetrator being ostracized, accused of cowardice, dishonorableness, and even incompetence (8). As found in some parts of Turkey, and many other places in the world, custom 1 Council of Forensic Medicine, Diyarbakir Group Presidency, Diyarbakir, Turkey. 2 Department of Criminalistics, Institute of Forensic Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara 06540, Turkey. 3 Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey. 4 Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Namik Kemal University, Tekirdag, Turkey. 5 Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor of Diyarbakir, Diyarbakir, Turkey. *Presented at the Forensic Sciences Spring Symposium, May 8–11, 2014, in Marmaris, Turkey. Received 25 Feb. 2014; and in revised form 2 July 2014; accepted 13 July 2014.
© 2015 American Academy of Forensic Sciences
dictates that women not engage in sexual activity before marriage and demonstrate fidelity after marriage. Typical reasons for custom killing include engagement in a relationship that the family disapproves of, giving birth to an illegitimate child, deserting the spouse for another person, and premarriage pregnancy (9). In certain locations, such as along the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa, and in other Islamic countries, custom killings are more common (10,11). The difference between individual cases of honor killing and custom killing is that the former is usually carried out by an individual acting alone, whereas the latter involves a common decision to commit murder made by family members (12). According to Turkish Criminal Justice Law, Item 82, Subitem K, an “aggravated sentence of life imprisonment” is to be handed down for customary homicide that has arisen from a family decision (13). In this study, customary homicides were analyzed in the context of a discussion on preventive measures. Materials and Methods A search for customary homicides within a total of 9961 finalized cases heard by the Diyarbakir Criminal High Court between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 revealed 28 customary homicides (0.28%). These cases were retrospectively evaluated in terms of the perpetrator and victim’s gender, age, marital status, occupational status, and educational status, the place of homicide, motives, methods, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, the month and the day of homicides. SPSS 16.0 software was used for statistical analyses. Results Of the 28 files, 18 (64.3%), three (10.7%), and seven (25%) had been finalized in the first, second, and third Diyarbakir Criminal 1241
1242
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
High Courts. In four of the files, there were two perpetrators charged with murder, and in two files, there were three perpetrators charged with murder, resulting in a total of 36 perpetrators. For two perpetrators, the case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Thus, the study focused on 28 victims and 34 perpetrators. All perpetrators were male, while 17 (60.7%) of the victims were female, and 11 (39.3%) were male. The age range of the victims was 15–57 years with a mean age of 26.93 (SD, 10.55 years). The corresponding figures for perpetrators were 15–54 years and a mean age of 30.29 (SD, 10.29 years) years. Of the victims, four (14.3%) were children (between 15 and 18 years old), with two 15 years old (7.14%) and two other (7.14%) 17 years old. Four of the perpetrators (11.76%) were also in the child age group (between 14 and 18 years old), with one case (2.94%) being 14 years, one (2.94%) 15 years, and two (5.88%) 16 years old. Table 1 shows the age distribution in the perpetrator and victim groups, with no significant age difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). When the victims were examined in terms of their marital status, it was seen that of the 11 victims who were unmarried, one (9%) was divorced. Of the three cases with a religious marriage, one (33.3%) had a traditional “berdel” religious marriage (“berdel” is a practice whereby two families “exchange” women by arranging simultaneous marriages between daughters and sons from each family). Of the 12 victims who had a religious marital status, three (25%) were murdered by their husbands. Of the five victims with a civil marriage status, three (60%) were murdered by their husbands. Of the perpetrators, 14 (41.2%) and nine (26.4%) had civil or religious marital status, respectively, while 11 (32.3%) were unmarried. One of the perpetrators with religious marital status had a “berdel” marriage. When the victims were examined in terms of their gender and occupation it was seen that of the 17 female cases, 10 (58.8%) were housewives, six (35.3%) were unemployed, and only one (5.9%) was worker. Of the 11 male cases, four (14.3%) were farmer, three (10.7%) were shopkeeper, two were (7.1%) worker, and two were (7.1%) unemployed. There were significant differences between the groups of occupational and gender distribution (p = 0.001). Housewives and unemployed women were considered economically dependent. From an economic dependence viewpoint also, there were significant differences between male and female victims (p = 0.000). TABLE 1––Age distribution among victim and perpetrator groups.* Perpetrator Age Groups Victim Age Groups
14–18 years
19–29 years
30–39 years
40–49 years
≥50 years
Total
15–18 years % 19–29 yeasr % 30–39 years % 40–49 years % ≥ 50 year % Total %
1 2.9% 2 5.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 4 11.8%
3 8.8% 8 23.5% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 35.3%
1 2.9% 6 17.6% 4 11.8% 1 2.9% 1 2.9% 13 38.2%
1 2.9% 1 2.9% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 8.8%
0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 2 5.9%
6 17.6% 18 53% 6 17.7% 3 8.8% 1 2.9% 34 100.0%
*A cross-table was made for a total of 34 perpetrators and 28 victims with the addition of one victim for each perpetrator in the table, resulting in a total of 34 victims. There was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05).
Of the perpetrators, 12 (35.3%) were farmers, 10 (29.4%) were shopkeepers, six (17.6%) were unemployed, three (8.8%) were drivers, two (5.8%) were workers, and one (2.9%) was a student. Nine of the perpetrators (26.5%) were illiterate, while others had some degree of education, although no detailed information could be obtained as to the level of education. Two perpetrators (5.9%) were ex-convicts. Eighteen (64.3%) of the murders were committed in the center of Diyarbakir Province, seven (25.0%) in a village, and three (10.7%) in a district center. The murders were committed at home in 15 cases (53.6%), on the street in seven (25.0%), in the countryside in four (14.2%), one (3.6%) in the workplace, and one (3.6%) in a hotel. Among the homicide causes, 12 (43%) were emotional relationship, six (21%) were rape, three (11%) were molestation, three (11%) were lifestyle, two (7%) were virginity, and two (7%) were gossip related. And among the homicide methods, 13 (46%) were penetrating/crushing trauma, five (18%) were general body trauma, five (18%) were strangulation, three (11%) were gunshot wounding, and two (7%) were poisoning. The distribution of homicide’s causes according to gender is as follows: While in 20 female victims, 10 (35.7%) were emotional relationship, three (10.7%) were rape, three (10.7%) were molestation, two (7.1%) were lifestyle, one (3.6%) was virginity, and one (3.6%) was gossip related; in eight male victims, three (10.7%) were rape, two (7.1%) were emotional relationship, one (3.6%) was lifestyle, one (3.6%) was virginity, and one (3.6%) was gossip related with no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). Also, there were no significant differences in homicide’s methods according to the victim’s gender (p > 0.05). Of the victims, four (11.8%) and three (8.8%) had civil or religious marital status, respectively. Four victims (11.8%) were cousins, six (17.6%) were sibling, one (2.9%) was nephew, one was daughter, three (8.8%) was uncle-in-law, three were sisterin-law, and two (5.9%) were brother-in-law, of the perpetrator. The other seven (20.6%) were killed by individuals with no blood relationship. A significant blood or in-law relationship of the perpetrator with the victim was significantly associated with the victim’s gender (p < 0.001), where all female victims were murdered by relatives or in-laws. Of the seven (20.6%) male victims, there was a blood or an in-law relationship with the perpetrator. In the other seven male victims, no such a relationship existed between the victim and perpetrator, and the male perpetrator in these cases murdered the male victim who had an indiscreet affair with a woman who is perpetrator’s relative or relative-in-law. In 13 incidents (38.2%), the perpetrators escaped the crime scene; while in 11 incidents (32.4%), the perpetrators surrendered to the police. In nine (32.14%) incidents, perpetrators exhibited a number of different actions such as taking the victim’s corpse to the countryside, burning the corpse, taping the mouth of the victim closed, or attempting to give an impression of suicide by hanging. In one case (2.9%), the perpetrator lost consciousness at the crime scene. When the distribution of homicides by months was examined, it was seen that two (7.1%) homicides were realized in January, whereas two (7.1%) were in February, five (17.8%) were in April, two (7.1%) were in May, four (14.2%) were in June, two (7.1%) were in July, one (3.5%) was in August, two (7.1%) were in September, four (14.2%) were in October, and four (14.2%) were in November. And when the distribution of homicides by days, it was seen that four (14.2%) were Monday, four (14.2%) were Tuesday, three (10.7%) were Wednesday, four
YILMAZ ET AL.
(14.2%) were Thursday, six (21.4%) were Saturday, and two (7.1%) were Sunday. There are no significant distribution differences for month of the year and day of the week (p > 0.05). The perpetrators were sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 4.20 years to aggravated life imprisonment. Excluding cases of aggravated life imprisonment, the average duration of prison terms was 15.68 years (SD, 6.62 years). Twenty perpetrators (58.8%) were sentenced to aggravated imprisonment, while four were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. Perpetrators received reduced sentences for a variety of reasons including being underage (< 18 years), probable unjust provocation, positive attitudes, and behaviors during the trial, confession, and admission, etc. Discussion Honor or customary killings occur in many countries, mostly in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa (10,12,14). According to a report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) in 2000, throughout the world, approximately 5000 women or girls were killed by family members within the context of a honor killing (15). Undoubtedly, every society has its own customs and moral laws, which are obeyed to different degrees. Although custom and rules represent integral elements of societal unity, custom plays an authoritative role in patriarchal societies (10). According to data from the Turkish General Directorate of Security, the total number of honor killings and customary homicides is between 200 and 250 per year (16). Cakir et al. examined the case files from Penal Department 9 of the Turkish Supreme Court between 1995 and 2000. They concluded that honor killings and customary homicides comprised 8% of all homicide cases (17). A relatively larger surface area and population of Turkey implies the co-existence of different sociocultural groups that may exhibit contradictory social attitudes (12). Also, higher levels of economic development and modernization in western Turkey result in internal migration. Data from the Turkish General Directorate of Security show that the predominant birthplace for perpetrators of honor and customary killing is eastern and southeastern regions of Turkey (12,16). Similarly, a 2008 report by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council pointed out a higher frequency of such incidents in larger provinces with high population density such as Diyarbakir, which receives a high level of internal migrants (fourth in Turkey in this regard). Other associated major contributory factors are poor accommodation, lack of education, unemployment, poverty, and crowded families. Almost half of all perpetrators were reported to be born in eastern or southeastern regions, where traditional patriarchal family structures prevail (18). Our study was conducted in Diyarbakir, which is one of the southeastern region states. Other studies have suggested that customary homicide is more common in rural or urban areas, especially in eastern or southeastern regions, that are more densely populated with ethnic Kurdish or Arab Turks (10,12). Our findings showed that 64.3% of all homicides were carried out in the provincial center of Diyarbakir. Previous studies suggested that customary homicide is not a phenomenon restricted to villages, but also can be seen in large or small cities, with an influence of internal immigration on customary homicides (10). In southeastern region, Turkey, religious marriages, polygamy, fellow wives (signifying the mutual relationship between wives from a civil marriage and religious marriage), berdel, and consanguineous marriage often lead to a secondary position for
.
CUSTOMARY HOMICIDES
1243
women in these societies, making it easier to justify and rationalize violence against women in the eyes of the perpetrators and paving the way to honor killings (10). While an emphasis is placed on honor in many faiths, the vast majority of the population in Diyarbakir is Muslims. However, homicide in the name of honor or custom is not acceptable according to Islam (8,19). In a study of Bagli, 58.4% and 32.6% of all the victims of custom homicide were found to be females and males, respectively, with both sexes involved in 7.4% of the incidents (7). In our study, 17 of the victims (60.7%) were female, while 11 (39.3%) were male. Most of the published work examining customary homicide underlines the theme of violence against women and describes customary homicide as the “killing of a woman who inflicted a blemish upon the honor of the family, tribe, or society (10,12,20). In the aforementioned Report on the Customary Homicide and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council, it was stated that not only females but also males are the victims of such crimes (18). Certainly, customary homicide generally results from the supposedly inappropriate and therefore suppressed expression of a woman’s sexuality. However, this expression requires the involvement of both sexes, thus resulting in the punishment of not only the woman, but also man, as shown by our findings. Most cases in our study involved a relationship between the victim and perpetrator. In only 20.6% of cases, such a relationship was absent and all the victims were males, resulting in a significant effect of such relationship on the incidence of customary homicide (p < 0.001). This latter finding can also be viewed as evidence for an attempt to protect the honor of the family through female sexuality. All perpetrators in our study were males. A study of Bagli shows that males carried out the majority (90.5%) of customary homicides, while females either play an instigator role or kill their husbands (7). Cakir et al. proposes that the term “honor” directly implies female’s sexuality in such societies, where the responsibility of “protecting” honor therefore lies with males, resulting in a higher number of male perpetrators in this type of homicide (17). The age distribution in the victim and perpetrator groups was similar, and the presence of children or teenagers in both groups may be considered as an indicator of the “mercilessness” of the practice. In our study, 11.7% of perpetrators were children. According to the Report on Customary and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council, 9% of perpetrators were children and most were between the ages of 19 and 35 years (18). In our study, 73.5% of perpetrators were between 19 and 39 years of age. Several previous studies have examined the association between the months or seasons of the year and the number of traumatic deaths (21–25). In our study, while there were more murders on Saturday, the difference compared with other days of the week was not significant. Also, homicides were recorded in all months except for March and December (p > 0.05). Of all victims, 43% had religious marital status compared with 26.4% of perpetrators. Religious marriage without legal marriage is prohibited by Item 230 of the Turkish Criminal Justice Law and is subject to two- to six-month imprisonment (26). In a study of Bagli, 3.4% of the perpetrators of customary homicide were married according to the previously explained practice of “berdel” (7), indicating the low level of education and the prominence of tradition of our victim and perpetrator cases. Again, poverty, traditional lifestyle, socioeconomic underdevelopment, and ignorance have all been proposed as the main motives
1244
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
behind customary homicide (27–29). TV series depicting tribal life also have been found to influence society by fictionally justifying customs, tribal life, and honor killings (30). Women who are economically dependent are inevitably an inseparable part of patriarchal life (31). In this study, only one female victim (3.6%) was worker, while the rest were either unemployed or housewives and were therefore in state of complete economic dependency. Similarly, male victims did not have a high-level socioeconomical background, with 7.1% being unemployed at the time of the incident. However, statistical assessments showed a significant difference between male and female victims in terms of the level of economic independence (p = 0.000). Of all homicides in our study, 15 (53.6%) were carried out in the home. Demirci et al. (32) reported that of all homicide cases involving the use of a shotgun, 54% occurred in the home. These observations represent a good example for the fact that violence within a close community such as family mostly occurs in the home environment (33). Some examples of women’s behavior that has led to a customary homicide include going to a movie, holding hands with another man, showing the husband “due respect” (not doing the things her husband wants, not obeying his wishes, going out of the house during daytime, wearing tight jeans, not adjusting her behaviors according to her husband’s ideas), and requesting a song from a radio station (34). These are similar to motives observed in our study, with a high proportion (42.9%) being due to disapproved emotional relationships. Even in case of rape, the woman in question can be the subject of an honor killing (12). Of the five killings due to rape in our study, three victims were females, and in the three killings due to molestation, all victims were males. According to results reported by Ozdemir et al., (35) honor killings realized by strangulation method comprised 34% of all murders. In our study, 46.4% of victims (13 cases) died as a result of penetrating or penetrating–crushing type of trauma. Firearm injuries are one of the most common using homicide methods (36,37). In our study, three homicides (10.7%) were resulted from firearm injuries. Customary homicide is known to occur more commonly in rural societies than in industrialized communities. The isolated social life of rural societies generally exhibits patriarchal characteristics, where women’s honor is not considered an individual attribute but rather part of the honor of the family and community. In such communities, even in the absence of a blood relationship, individuals have mutual obligations (10). In a study of Bagli, of the 190 cases charged with customary homicide, 15.8% were reported to be farmers (7), as compared to 35.3% (12 cases) in our study. In Bagli’s study, 8.9% of the perpetrators were illiterate (7), whereas we observed a higher proportion of illiterate perpetrators in the current study (i.e. 26.5%). The Report on Customary and Honour Killings by the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Council suggests that lower educational status plays a major role in this type of homicide both for the victim and perpetrator (18). This is in line with our findings, which showed that nine perpetrators (26.5%) were illiterate. Of the perpetrators in our study, two (5.9%) were ex-convicts. The perpetrators were sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 4.20 years to aggravated life imprisonment, with an average sentence of 15.68 years (SD, 6.62 year) when those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment are excluded. Twenty perpetrators (58.8%) were handed down aggravated imprisonment, and four got aggravated life imprisonment.
In a study of Bagli (7), the reported duration of imprisonment ranged between 3.5 and 40 years, with an average of 17.24 years (SD, 6.92 year), similar to our findings. In nine cases (32.14%), perpetrators were involved in several crimes, such as taking the victim’s corpse to the countryside, burning the corpse, taping the mouth of the victim, or giving trying to make the murder appear to be suicide. As customary homicides are the result of a common decision by family members, perpetrators are generally chosen among younger males to benefit from reduced sentences for minors; an attempt is made to give a false impression of suicide; or the victim is forced to commit a suicide (38). Zeren et al. (39) describe the case of a dyadic death who appeared to have committed suicide in the same car due to the social pressure of custom. The effect of custom on such suicides cannot be ignored (40). The major obstacle in the prevention of customary and honor killings is the belief by family and community members that such homicides are not real crimes, but are in fact the sole method to remove a perceived blemish on the family and that the perpetrator is a “social hero” (12). In a public survey in Diyarbakir involving 787 individuals, 26% of participants stated that honor is a valid reason for homicide, while 26.6% approved a family decision for punishment in such cases (41). In Bagli’s study, 47.9% of the perpetrators of customary homicide or honor killings did not express regret, and a positive reaction was given by the family members in 42.1% of cases, implying approval of the idea that “what needed to be done was done” (7). Similar opinions were expressed in the Report on Customary and Honour Killings Report, emphasizing the inadequacy of more rigorous punishment as a deterrent due to the absence of remorse (18). In our study, 11 perpetrators (32.4%) chose not to flee the crime scene and instead surrendered to the authorities, again suggesting they held the belief that they acted appropriately. Honor killings committed in the context of custom represent a multifaceted problem. These kind of homicides are on the rise worldwide (42). Shahien Taj, from the Henna Foundation, said: “Honour is supposed to be a positive word. Clearly, calling a killing an ‘honour crime’ is a contradiction of terms” (43). Honor killings have been reported in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, and the United Kingdom, according to the 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights (42). Every year between 25 and 50, women and girls are the victims of “honor” killings in Jordan. A Jordanian girl of 12 was intelligent and full of curiosity. But when she returned home one evening from a walk in the neighborhood with some friends, she was confronted by her enraged father. Shouting that she had dishonored the entire family, her father proceeded to beat her with sticks and iron chains until she was dead. He told police he killed his only daughter because she went for walks without his permission. About the same time, another woman, 34, was shot dead by her brother for the “crime” of marrying a Christian. Her brother left her body in the street and smoked a cigarette while he waited for the police to arrive (44). The 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights says that “honor” killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis (42). None of the world’s major religions condone honor-related crimes. But perpetrators have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds. However, it is a very strong cultural issue. Leaders of the
YILMAZ ET AL.
world’s faiths have also strongly denounced a connection between religion and honor killings (43). Although there is increased awareness of this issue, states remain reluctant to take the necessary steps to end impunity for honor killings. For example, although the Supreme Court of Brazil struck down “defense of honor” as a justification for murder of a wife in 1991, ten years later, courts still fail to prosecute and convict men who claim they kill their wives because of their alleged infidelity (45). Turkish Criminal Justice Law No. 5237 sets forth a severe aggravated life imprisonment for customary homicide. However, due to social pressure and the possibility of imprisonment, families often coerce younger males to commit the crime and thus benefit from a reduced sentence. Families also make the murder appear to be suicide, and perpetrators are largely considered to be “heroes” by their community. Furthermore, perpetrators are welcomed and respected by other inmates upon incarceration. These observations suggest that regulations involving the laws may be inadequate in terms of providing a disincentive effect. However, we believe that sentences should be reduced; indeed inflicting the maximum punishment may still provide a disincentive. Also, the role of education in transforming the perception of woman in society cannot be denied. A concerted effort involving different parties, such as nongovernmental organizations, universities, the media, and government institutions, may help increase awareness of this issue. In conclusion, it is clear that the countries where honor killing is seen most widely are mainly agricultural countries like Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, India, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Uganda, and Turkey. Therefore, when the transformation from an agricultural to an industrialized society is completed, individuals place more importance on their own values and beliefs than to those of society, resulting in a different understanding of “honor”, one that does not involve emotional–romantic–sexual experiences. Acknowledgments Many thanks to the following members of the Presidential Council of Diyarbakır Criminal High Court for their valuable contributions to this study: Hayati Karaaslan, Mustafa Kahveci, and Mustafa Yilmaz. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (accesssed April 8, 2013). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom (accessed February 25, 2014). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour (accessed February 25, 2014). TBMM (Turkish Grand National Assembly) parliamentary research commission report on the honour crimes and violence against women and children. Ankara, Turkey: TBMM Publishes, 2006. Hancerlioglu O. Dictionary of sociology. Istanbul, Turkey: Remzi Bookstore, 1996;388. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/showthread.php?t=8905 (accessed April 8, 2013). Bagli M, Ozensel E. Honour and custom homicides in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Destek Publishes, 2011. Efe A. Honour killings in the light of the authority of executing punishments according to Islamic law. Sakarya Univ J Facul Theol 2011;24 (2):105–19. Tezcan M. Turkey’s honor killings. Ankara, Turkey: Natural Publications, 2003. Yılmaz BO. Tradition behind deaths: honour killings. J Women’s Stud 2012;8:69–86. Kulczycki A, Windle S. Honor killings in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review of the literature. Viol Again Women 2011;17 (11):1442–64.
.
CUSTOMARY HOMICIDES
1245
12. Ince HO, Yarali A, Ozsel D. Customary killings in Turkey and Turkish modernization. Middle East Stud 2009;45(4):537–51. 13. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=3913 (accessed April 08, 2013). 14. Hadidi M, Kulwicki A, Jahshan H. A review of 16 cases of honour killings in Jordan in 1995. Int J Legal Med 2001;114(6):357–9. 15. United Nations Population Fund. The state of the world’s population 2000: lives together, worlds apart: men and women in a time of change; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english (accessed April 8, 2013). 16. Aktas E, Vural E, Celik Y, Kose T. Honor killings in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: General Directorate of Security Department of Public Security, Public Security Directorate, 2006. 17. Cakir R, Yavuz MF, Demircan YT. Honor killings in Turkey. J Forensic Med 2004;18(3–4):27–33. 18. Prime Ministry of Turkey, Human Rights Presidency, honor killings report. Ankara, Turkey: TBMM (Turkish Grand National Assembly) Publishes, 2008. 19. Zaidi S, Ramarajan A, Qiu R, Raucher M, Chadwick R, Nossier A. Sexual rights and gender roles in a religious context. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;106(2):151–5. 20. Bilgili N, Vural G. The heaviest way of violence against women: honor killings. J Anatolia Nurs Health Sci 2011;14(1):66–72. 21. Ambade VN, Hemant Vasant Godbole HV, Kukde HG. Suicidal and homicidal deaths: a comparative and circumstantial approach. J Forensic Leg Med 2007;14(5):253–60. 22. Mde LRG. Trends in mortality from homicide in Medellın (Colombia): 1975–2003. Gac Sanit 2005;19(3):238–41. 23. Sanchez R, Tejada P, Martinez J. Patterns of violent death in Bogota 1997–2003. Rey Salud Publica (Bogota) 2005;7(3):254–67. 24. Tiihonen J, Rasanen P, Hakko H. Seasonal variation in the occurence of homicide in Finland. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:1711–4. 25. Mohanty MK, Kumar TSM, Mohanram A, Palimar V. Victims of homicidal deaths – an analysis of variables. J Clin Forensic Med 2005;12:302–4. 26. http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=5178 (accessed April 8, 2013). 27. KAMER.“For avoid saying wish” about the name of honor homicides 2004 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2004. 28. KAMER. “In the fight against permanent methods development project in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia region under the pretext of honor killings” 2005 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2005. 29. KAMER. “If you want it ends” murders in the name of honor 2006 Report. Diyarbakir, Turkey: KAMER, 2006. 30. Mora N. Media and cultural identity. Int J Human Sci 2008;5(1):1–14. 31. Kardam F. Killing in the name of honour, or suicide. In: Akın A, editor. Gender, health and woman. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University Publications, 2003;249–62. 32. Demirci S, Dogan KH, Gunaydin G, Koc S. Deaths with shotgun. Acta Turcica Online Thematic J Turkic Stu 2009;1(1):206–12. 33. Cechova-Vayleux E, Leveillee S, Lhuillier JP, Garre JB, Senon JL, Richard-Devantoy S. Female intimate partner homicide: clinical and criminological issues. Encephale 2013;39(6):416–25. 34. Kerestecioglu IO, editor. Womans social position in Turkey: achievements and problems. In: Berktay F, edit€or. The position of woman in Turkey and in the European Union: achievements, problems, and prospects. Istanbul, Turkey: KA-DER, 2004;35–55. 35. Ozdemir B, Celbis O, Kaya A. Cut throat injuries and honor killings: review of 15 cases in eastern Turkey. J Forensic Leg Med 2013;20 (4):198–203. 36. Koc S, Sam B, Yilmaz R. Forensic medical aspects of shotgun injuries. Acta Turcica Online Thematic J Turkic Stu 2009;1(1):213–27. 37. Heide KM. Matricide and stepmatricide victims and offenders: an empirical analysis of U.S. arrest data. Behav Sci Law 2013;31(2):203–14. 38. Yildiz MC. The custom murders and suicides dependent on custom compulsion in Turkey. Abant Izzet Baysal Univ Grad School Soc Sci J Soc Sci 2008;16(1):209–31. 39. Zeren C, Kiriktir E, Arslan MM. Dyadic death due to family custom in marriage. Dicle Med J 2012;39(2):306–9. 40. Coskun M, Zoroglu S, Ghaziuddin N. Suicide rates among Turkish and American youth: a cross-cultural comparison. Arch Suicide Res 2012;16 (1):59–72. 41. Batun I, Polat O. A knowledge, attitude, behavior studies implemented on 787 people about honor killings in Diyarbakir. In: Ulman YI, Artvinli F, editors. Bioethics in a changing world. Istanbul, Turkey: Turkish Bioethics Association, 2012;218–24.
1246
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
42. “Honour” killings. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html (accessed June 1, 2014). 43. Honour-based violence in the UK. In: Honour crimeshttp:// www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml (accessed June 1, 2014). 44. Two “honour” killings in Jordan; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/boxes/box20.html (accessed June 1, 2014). 45. Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective: violence against women and “honor” crimes; http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2001/04/05/item-12-integration-human-rights-women-and-genderperspective-violence-against-women (accessed June 1, 2014).
Additional information and reprint requests: Nergis Canturk, M.D. Department of Criminalistics Institute of Forensic Sciences Ankara University Tip Fakultesi Cebeci Yerleskesi Adli Bilimler Enstitusu, Dikimevi Ankara Ankara 06540 Turkey E-mail: [email protected]
