Did the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 get it right? Are all honour killings revenge killings?
| Author | Recep Doğan |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474513504797 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Punishment & Society
15(5) 488–514
!The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1462474513504797
pun.sagepub.com
Article
Did the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009 get it
right? Are all honour
killings revenge killings?
Recep Dog˘an
TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Turkey
Abstract
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 substantially reshaped the law on provocation in
England and Wales. The Act was prompted by the Government and guided by the Law
Commission. It is unfortunate that the Commission and Government dismissed the
issue of honour killings so quickly, on the basis of unconvincing research evidence.
Honour killing cases were ruled out as potential provocation cases and left outside
the scope of the defence of loss of control, by assuming that in honour killing cases the
defendant must have acted in a considered desire for revenge. However, the Act is
flawed by the assumption that all honour killing cases are revenge killings. In the light of
the author’s research, this article will argue that there are honour killing cases the
circumstances of which deserve to be left to the jury, as the desire for revenge is
not the motive at all and the defendant was able to resist the pressure until the final
triggering act.
Keywords
admissible evidence, Coroners and Justice Act 2009, honour killings, loss of control
defence, revenge killings
Introduction
Despite cultural complexities and powerful motivations, the voice of the defendant
who has committed honour killing has rarely been heard. Indeed, in the study of
honour killings much of the available data is newspaper-based reports of cases and
Corresponding author:
Recep Dog
˘an, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji U
¨niversitesi Hukuk Faku¨ltesi So
¨g
˘u¨to
¨zu¨ Caddesi No:43, So
¨g
˘u¨to
¨zu¨,
Ankara, 06560, Turkey.
Email: recepdogan06@hotmail.com
reported incidents (Husseini, 2009; Kressel, 1981; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969;
Sliman, 2005). Another source has been personal accounts, from those who are
likely victims of honour killing, or who somehow have managed to save themselves
from becoming a victim of honour killing, or from those who are close relatives or
friends of a victim of an honour killing (Begikhani, 2005: 214–222; Kevorkian,
2003). Some data can also be collected from persons involved in the issue of
honour killings in a professional capacity, such as lawyers, local administrators,
psychiatrists, police officers, prosecutors and so on (Begikhani, 2005: 211; Jafri,
2008: 49, 50; Kevorkian, 2005). Finally, some data have been collected from court
rulings and police records (Begikhani, 2005; Hoyek et al., 2005; Pimentel et al.,
2005: 255; Sliman, 2005; Van Eck, 2003). As shown, the voice of the defendant has
rarely been heard.
1
Their perspectives on the crimes committed have been over-
looked and their personal circumstances have never been assessed properly in their
full context.
By ignoring these accounts, it is perhaps inevitable that a general assumption
has been created for such defendants, in which they are assumed to have been
content with what they did, and where they are assumed to have acted in a con-
sidered desire for revenge. This firm but ill-informed assumption, which regards all
honour killing cases as revenge killing cases, has been taken for granted by the
Government and the Law Commission during the preparation of the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009 (hereafter the Act). So, honour killing cases were ruled out as
potential provocation cases and left outside the scope of the defence of loss of
control. However, as the rest of this article will illustrate, this position is not
based on adequate data, and the Act is flawed in assuming that all honour killing
cases are killings where the defendant has acted in a considered desire for revenge.
In this article, the author first will summarize the concept of defence of ‘loss of
control’, and explain the contexts in which killings in the name of honour occur by
reflecting the different interpretations of honour killing. Then, in the light of the
author’s field work carried out in Turkish prisons, it will be argued that there are
honour killing cases the circumstances of which deserve to be left to the jury, as the
desire for revenge is not the motive at all and the defendant was able to resist the
pressure until the final triggering act. By interrogating the question of what would
be the response of the English law, if such cases were committed in England under
similar circumstances by defendants with similar cultural understanding of honour
and shame, it will be questioned whether there is a need to reformulate the English
law in the context of the Act. It will also be argued that the position of the Act
which does not allow assessing personal circumstances of the defendants in their
full context may be considered disproportionate and inappropriate in some cases.
The concept of defence of ‘loss of control’
The Act came into force on 4 October 2010 (SI 2010/816). The Act, which was
prompted by the Government and guided by the Law Commission, substantially
reshaped the law on provocation in England and Wales. The partial defence of
Dog
˘an 489
To continue reading
Request your trial