The Profiles of Victims,Perpetrators,and Unfounded Beliefs in Honor Killings in Turkey

Abstract

Despite Turkey’s increasing awareness of honor killings, many unfounded beliefs and assumptions still pervade concerning the general profiles of victims, perpetrators, and the crimes committed. These erroneous views are predicated upon a plethora of weak generalizations rather than robust research evidence. Yet, such claims have a significant impact on both the regulations aiming to combat these killings and the working practices of the officers struggling to prevent their occurrence. By deploying a qualitative interview method, corroborated by court rulings and prison files, and reflecting views of prisoners who have committed murder in the name of honor (namus) in Turkey, the author, herein, attempts to construct a data-based description of honor killing.

Keywords

honor killings Turkey victims perpetrators unfounded beliefs

Introduction

Violence, in the context of gender inequality, can better be understood by taking a broader look at the concept of violence itself. Indeed, a considerable scientific literature already exists describing the role of gender inequality and patriarchy in violence (Alonso, 1996; Anderson, 2008; Baker, Gregware, & Cassidy, 1999; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Haj-Yahia, 2005; Kandiyoti, 1988; Kim & Sung, 2000; Radford, 1992; Raj & Silverman, 2002), and a substantial review of such literature is beyond this article. There is, however, scope within these pages for a focused investigation into “intrafamily femicide in defence of honor” (Faqir, 2001), or so-called “honor killings.”¹ Despite increasing awareness about honor killings, there is minimal qualified information currently available about the characteristics of the victims, the profile of perpetrators, or the variations of the committed crimes. As this article will show, journalists, campaign groups, and even currently researching academics argue conflicting claims concerning those victims, perpetrators, and crimes. Consequently, this lack of substantiated evidence creates a number of significant operational problems for the agencies that are charged with reducing and hopefully eventually eliminating such brutal offenses.

By deploying a qualitative interview methodology, corroborated with court rulings and prison files, the author will, in the following sections, demonstrate that, on the basis of weak generalization rather than robust research evidence, many unfounded beliefs or assumptions exist. It will then be argued that the defendant’s relationship to the victim, which is crucial to the identification of who should bear responsibility for retaliation against the “dishonorable conduct,” is the main difference between honor killings committed in Turkey and honor killings committed in different geographical contexts such as the Middle East or North Africa. It will further be explained that apart from a prevalent tendency surrounding “proof of disgrace” that exists following these murders (i.e., neither the defendant’s family nor that of the victim will accept responsibility for the victim’s funeral, to officially be seen to disown the dead body), there is no characteristic or ritual carried out by the defendant, before, during, or after the offense that differentiates these killings from other murders. Finally, it will be established that much more primary and qualitative research is required, especially on the perpetrators’ experience and perspectives to develop methods to address men’s violence that need to be carried out together with the provision of women-centered services.

Literature Review²

So far, in the study of honor killings, much of the available data are taken from newspaper based reports of cases and reported incidents (Chesler, 2010; Husseini, 2009; Khafagy, 2005; Kressel, 1981; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969; Sliman, 2005). Another major source has been the personal accounts of those who are the likely victims of honor killing, those who somehow managed to save themselves from becoming a victim of honor killing, or from those who are close relatives or friends of a victim of an honor killing (Begikhani, 2005, pp. 214-222; KA-MER, 2004; Kevorkian, 2003). Data have also been collected from persons professionally involved in the issue of honor killings, such as lawyers, local administrators, psychiatrists, police officers, prosecutors, and so on (Begikhani, 2005 p.211; Jafri, 2008, pp. 49, 50 ; Kevorkian, 2005; United Nations Development Programme & United Nations Population Fund [UNDP & UNFPA], 2005). Finally, court rulings and police records have been used as a source (Begikhani, 2005; Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance [CEWLA], 2005; Hoyek, Sıdawi, & Mrad, 2005; Sliman, 2005; Van Eck, 2003; Yirmibesoglu, 2007). However, as convincingly argued by Kulczycki and Windle (2011), many previous studies have been substantially marred by poor methodological quality and weak generalizability.

There are also significant questions that can be raised about the quality, validity, and reliability of many of the studies that have been carried out in Turkey. In this context, the list of methodological errors is already extensive; data derived from non-representative samples, which are therefore not suitable for generalization, have been generalized (Bilefsky, 2006; Country of Origin Information Service of the UK Border Agency [COI], 2008; Farac, 2006; Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001); stories told by victims’ families, the police, professionals, and other knowledgeable informants are taken to be a form of truth without being corroborated with other reliable sources (Campaign Against Honour Killings in Turkey; COI, 2008; KA-MER, 2004; UNDP & UNFPA, 2005); research studies commissioned by Parliament or governmental bodies³ have used untrained officers to arbitrarily collect data from police records; and the list goes on. In the case of the latter example, where Parliament had commissioned a special report into honor killings in Turkey, data collection had been left to the discretion of police officers who had absolutely no prior training about data collection methodologies. The resultant effect of them unwittingly allowing their opinions, or any prior knowledge about honor killings, to influence their selection of cases could have rendered immeasurable damage to the resultant findings of the report.⁴

Needless to say, the limited data surrounding the issue of honor killings, coupled with the unconvincing research evidence available to date, have created an environment conducive to making general assumptions based on popular beliefs rather than upon qualified research evidence. Moreover, the voice of the defendant and those serving sentences in Turkish prisons for having committed murder in the name of honor (namus),⁵ which should be crucial to reflecting the whole picture and dynamic behind these killings, have rarely been heard.⁶ It will, therefore, come as no surprise to find that these unsubstantiated claims and rash generalizations are having a severely negative effect upon the lives of the victims, and the perpetrators of these crimes, while also significantly hampering the operations of the investigators and officers who are struggling to prevent their occurrence.

In this article, the author compares the similarities and discrepancies between available published data and the findings of the author’s own fieldwork. As will be explained below, by asking open questions concerning the issues leading to the crime for which the defendants had received their sentence, and what was felt, lived, or experienced by the defendants in such cases before and after the offense, the author, herein, attempts to construct a data-based description of honor killing.

Method

Due to the limitations of existing data and other issues outlined above, qualitative interviewing was chosen as the most appropriate methodology to collect data for the purposes of this research. So, the findings reflected here are based on 39 interviews conducted with 34 male and 5 female prisoners who have been found guilty of murder committed in the name of honor and are serving their sentences in 65 visited Turkish prisons. Special permission was obtained from the Turkish Ministry of Justice to access prison files and conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with prisoners. The interviews took place in Turkey from June 2008 to November 2008.

The 65 prisons visited during the research were in 37 different cities and 11 different towns, inhabited by people coming from a variety of ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, and where the incidence of honor killings tended to be high. There are 81 cities in Turkey, and according to the Turkish Statistical Institute’s official population census, the population of Turkey on December 31, 2000 was 67,803,927. The number of people living only in these 37 cities was 44,716,701.Therefore, by mutual agreement between the author and the Ministry of Justice, these 65 prisons were specifically chosen to raise the representation of targeted samples within the research profile, with particular regard to the areas of cultural diversity and population of the cities and towns for which the visited prisons provide prison and detention facilities.

According to the statistics of the Turkish Ministry of Justice⁷ in Turkey, on November 1, 2008, there were 43,157 convicted prisoners serving their sentences in 384 Turkish prisons. Of these, 40,617 prisoners were convicted of a non-political crime and the remaining 2,540 were convicted of a political crime. These figures do not cover prisoners awaiting their trial, verdict, or the outcome of appeal, and so are out of the scope of this study. Bearing in mind the number of convicted prisoners serving their sentences in the visited prisons,⁸ the population of the cities and towns for which the visited prisons provide prison and detention facilities, it is suggested that the fieldwork covers sufficient participants and data to use as a sample for a limited statistical analysis, to make general observations, and to draw tentative conclusions. However, as will be explained below, this study also has its own limitations and, therefore, it would be implausible to claim that all honor killings committed in Turkey tend to have the same characteristics that this article reflects. Nevertheless, a number of general claims can be extrapolated, with the caveat that all honor killings committed in Turkey are not necessarily bound to have all of the characteristics that this article reflects, or that a murder case that has all the characteristics discussed below is not necessarily bound to be an honor killing.

Research Site, Participants, and the Selection Process

In order not to jeopardize any ongoing trials, any prisoner whose trial was pending or who was arrested because of his or her alleged involvement in honor killing but not convicted was left outside the scope of the research. In addition, prisoners found guilty of attempted honor killings are not included in the research. Given that they might regard themselves as having failed to carry out the duty imposed on them, it was assumed that these prisoners might tend to focus on the reasons behind their failure rather than providing a full account of all the circumstances.

The empirical research in this article is mainly concerned with male offenders and female victims. This is because the available published data⁹ showed that the victims of honor killings were generally female. However, the author was able to reach, and to approach, 10 female prisoners during the fieldwork and subsequently analyzed the account of 5 female prisoners.

The author tried to avoid any approach that would allow any personal opinion of his or any prior knowledge about honor killing to influence the selection of cases.¹⁰ To do that, nothing was assumed or taken for granted by the author in his attempt to interrogate the issue of honor killings. By doing this, the author attempted to achieve perspective and not to be influenced by the ambivalent use of language to explain such murders and definitions given for such crimes. In Turkey, a distinction is drawn between “honor killings” (namus cinayetleri) and “murders of tradition or custom” (töre cinayetleri). Although there is no specific provision in the current Turkish Penal Code regulating honor killings, Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code now stipulates that killings in the name of töre (custom or tradition) have to be considered as a case of aggravated homicide and the perpetrator(s) must be sentenced to life imprisonment. However, this distinction seems very artificial when it is considered that the concept of honor is, itself, shaped by the cultural norms, traditions, or customs. Moreover, as argued and established by Cressey (1953) in his famous study of “other people’s money,” the legal definitions of specific offenses are often useless for purposes of criminological research. Therefore, rather than focusing on such an artificial distinction during the selection process, the author chose to focus upon identifying whether honor was the main motive behind the murder.

Participants were selected because their personal file in the prison had a reference which showed that the defendant had committed a murder in the name of honor. To do that, the author first went through all murder cases in each visited prison and thoroughly read all court rulings and personal records in all murder files. This allowed capturing of cases in which the defendant had identified the motive of honor as lying behind the murder, or where the defendant made reference to honor in the defense or, finally, whether the court itself established that honor was the main motive behind the murder. In this context, words or expressions used either in the defense such as “I did it for my honor” or “I could not live with this shame,” “I could not walk with my head held high among people,” and “I could not look at the face of the people,” or in court rulings, such as “the defendant claimed that the deceased’s behavior was provocative and brought a shame on honor,” were regarded as key indicators for the selection process. So, the final arbiter about the selection process was the defendant’s description about the motive behind the murder rather than personal opinion or knowledge of the author.

The Structure and Characteristics of the Interview

The interview was designed to be semi-structured and divided into three parts: (a) questions related to personal information, (b) questions related to the offense, and (c) questions related to the concept of honor. Here, for the purposes and scope of this article, the author is mainly going to reflect his findings related to the first and second part of the interview. The early questions such as the questions related to the age and educational and marital status of the defendant mainly aim to address sociodemographic factors and the circumstances of the defendant. These questions were also used as icebreakers at the beginning of an interview that obviously required asking some difficult and upsetting questions and required participants to recall their grief or what they had experienced.

Part 2 of the interview began with the question “Can you tell me the story of the crime for which you are serving this prison sentence?” and then continued with another two open-ended questions that give more freedom to the defendant to talk about the attitude of people toward the defendant and the defendant’s own feelings. As the interview was designed to be semi-structured, more detailed questions about the crime, and questions related to the identity, age, educational and marital status of the victim, and relationship with the victim in the period that led up to the killing were held back and used by the author only as prompts where necessary to help to understand the story of the defendant. The author would not use these prompts if the person had explained his or her story fully in his or her own words. Each interview took 2 hr or slightly longer. The author invited 92 prisoners, 82 males and 10 females to take part in the research. Sixty-one prisoners, 54 males and 7 females, agreed to take part in the initial research by signing the consent form. However, further screening processes took place and this resulted in reducing the number of the participants and analyzed cases even further.

In spite of the author’s meticulous approach, after conducting interviews in depth, in some cases, what first appeared as murder cases committed in the name of honor were not committed in the name of honor, and honor was not their motive at all. It was jealousy, pride, domestic and financial conflicts, and disagreements between the deceased and the defendant, or the suspicions of the defendants, which were the main reasons behind the murder. So, the author was compelled to leave the accounts of 20 male and 2 female interviewees out of the analysis after conducting interviews in depth. Therefore, the findings of the fieldwork here reflect 39 different cases and the views of 39 prisoners, 34 males and 5 females.

Findings

The Victims’ Profiles

As explained above, the empirical research in this part of the article is mainly concerned with male offenders and female victims, and therefore cases committed by a male offender against a male victim are outside the scope of this study. The fieldwork covers 39 incidents, committed by 34 male and 5 female defendants. It should be noted that in the case of Interviewee 23 (male) and Interviewee 37 (female), there was more than one defendant. In the case of Interviewee 23, the defendant committed the murder along with his younger brother, and in the case of Interviewee 37, the defendant committed the murder along with her father, mother, and elder brother. In neither case did the accomplices take part in the research.

These 39 incidents caused the death of 41 victims, 3 males, 37 females, and 1 infant, whose sex is regrettably not known by the author. There were 37 female victims, in 35 honor killings committed by 1 female and 34 male defendants. As there was more than 1 victim in the cases of male Interviewees 23 and 30, the number of victims is greater than the number of the incidents and of the participants.

Table 1 shows that among 37 female victims in 35 honor killings committed by 34 male and 1 female defendants, 5 victims (13%) were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. One was aged 14, one 15, one 16, and two victims were 17 years old at the time of the offense. The youngest victim was 14 years old, and the oldest victim was 49 years old at the time of the offense. Despite the fact that she was confirmed to be 21 years old at the time of the offense, 1 female victim did not have a birth certificate and had not been registered since she was born.¹¹

Table 1.

The Age Group of Female Victims of Honor Killings at the Time of the Murder.

Victim’s age (years)	Frequency
14-15	2
16-18	4
19-24	8
25-29	8
30-34	2
35-39	7
40-44	3
45-49	2
No reliable data	1
Total	n = 37

In published data, the author found cases where the ages of the victims were as young as 3 (Kevorkian, 2003)¹² and as old as 60 (Hadidi, Kulwicki, & Jahshan, 2001, p. 358). If the cases of infanticide for cause of honor, in which an infant was killed to conceal an affair and wash away shame, are left aside,¹³ it seems from Table 1 that women’s vulnerability to be victims of honor killings starts when they begin to menstruate, and continues for as long as they menstruate, which reflects their ability to produce a child. Similarly, in the case of Hatice (a case from Turkey), the victim was 12 years old when she was killed (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001, pp. 979, 982), and in the case of Salwa Kamel (a case from Israel), the victim was 13 years old at the time of killing (Kressel, 1981, pp. 145, 147). So, it is very rare to encounter any female victim who had not started menstruating, which roughly means victims below the age of 12, or any female victim who had stopped menstruating, which roughly means victims above the age of 50. This confirms Delaney (1991) who argues that a man’s honor is dependent on a woman keeping her virginity before marriage and her fidelity after marriage, so she can guarantee that a child who will be born in the marriage is from the seed of the husband who was approved and chosen by the woman’s family.

However, as Table 1 shows, women in the age group 19 to 24 years and 25 to 29 years (each with 22% and 8 cases) seem the most vulnerable and prevalent group to be the victim of an honor killing. Thus, according to Chesler (2010), the worldwide average age of victims for the entire population is 23. Similar figures were found in a study in Lebanon that demonstrated the vulnerability of women to be a victim of honor killing in the age group 19 to 29 years. Hoyek et al. (2005) described 25 cases committed in Lebanon in which women in the age group 20 to 24 years (with 44% and 12 cases) were the most vulnerable group to be a victim of honor killings, with women in the age group 25 to 29 (3 cases) and women in the age group 15 to 19 (4 cases) the next most frequent.

Table 2 indicates that the wife (35%), the younger sister (14%), and the daughter (14%) were the most frequent victims of honor killings with mothers, elder sisters, and paternal cousins following. These figures are similar to figures from Egypt by Khafagy (2005) which showed that wives (with 41%) are the most prevalent victims of honor killings in Egypt.

Table 2.

The Relationship of Female Victims of Honor Killings to the Murderer (n = 37).

The victim’s relationship to the murderer	Frequency
Wife	13
Younger sister	5
Daughter	5
Mother	4
Elder sister	4
Paternal cousin	2
Younger half-sister	1
Half-sister-in-law	1
Sister-in-law	1
Paternal aunt	1

The victims’ socioeconomic status is less documented (Kulczycki & Windle, 2011). The fieldwork suggests that the victims of honor killings are more educated than their killers. Unlike their murderers, 1 victim had a university degree at the time of the murder (Table 3); and some female victims were employed in jobs requiring academic qualification. In this context, 25 out of a total of 37 female victims (67%) did not have any jobs during their lifetime. Of those female victims who had been in paid employment, the majority (seven cases) held such jobs as cleaning lady, owner of a small boutique, hair dresser, baby sitter, and farm, factory, or textile industry worker, whereas only a minority had held positions requiring formal skills, training or a degree. Thus, in the case of Interviewee 5, the victim had expertise in tax law and was a civil servant in Turkey; and in the case of Interviewee 11, the victim was a civil servant and holding a junior post in a European country. Finally, in the case of Interviewee 27, the victim used to work as an assistant accountant. There were also two cases in the author’s sample where victims held jobs as a barmaid and singer in a pub, respectively, and were killed by their husbands because of their infidelity.

Table 3.

The Educational Status of Female Victims (n = 37).

Victim’s education	Frequency
Illiterate	6
Literate	3
Primary school level	16
Secondary school level	3
High school level	3
University level	1
Unknown	5

Four out of a total of 37 female victims were pregnant at the time of the murder. In three cases, the illegitimate pregnancy was regarded as a shame on family honor, and washing away the shame brought by the pregnancy was the main reason behind the murder. In the case of Interviewee 29, the victim was unofficially married, and her pregnancy therefore was not illegitimate as it was not out of wedlock. The victim was killed by her paternal cousin. In the interview, the defendant said that having more than one partner in a very short time cast a shadow on their family honor. So, the defendant killed his paternal cousin, who was 7 months pregnant and wounded her partner. In this context, it should be noted that, for the purposes of this article, the phrase “unofficially married” is used to refer to those people who do not have a legal marriage but regard themselves as married because a religious marriage ceremony has been conducted by an imam. Although the number has been decreasing, this practice or so-called hoca or imam nikahı still exists in Turkey. The imam nikahı does not count as a legal marriage, and any person who conducts such a ceremony without seeing an official marriage document commits an offense punishable with up to 6 months’ imprisonment.

Before concluding the analysis of the victims’ profiles, one point should be emphasized. Although male victims killed by male defendants are outside the scope of this research, the fieldwork found that in 10 out of a total of 34 honor killing incidents committed by 34 male defendants (29%), the male defendant not only retaliated against his female relative but also against the male involved in the alleged dishonorable conduct,¹⁴ as the lover of his wife, sister, or mother. In addition, 7 male defendants who killed their female relatives and did not, or could not, retaliate against the other male person involved in the dishonorable conduct, expressed their desire about killing the lovers or partners of their female relatives.

In this context, in 4 cases out of a total of 13 where the victim was a wife and was killed by the husband, the husband also killed his wife’s lover; and in 2 cases, a husband attempted to kill his wife’s lover. Similarly, where the victim was a sister, in 1 case, the defendant first killed the man who got his sister pregnant and killed his pregnant sister later. In another case, the defendant killed his sister and at the same time, attempted to murder his sister’s lover. In another case, a paternal cousin killed his paternal cousin who was 7 months pregnant and wounded her partner. Finally, in 1 case where the victim was a mother, the defendant killed his mother and also killed his half-brother, who had an affair with his mother. It can be said that when they acted, the male defendants were crueler to the male who had been involved in the dishonorable conduct and left nothing to chance. For instance, Interviewee 26 killed the man who got his sister pregnant by shooting him 8 times with an automatic rifle, which was normally used for killing wild pigs. But he fired his gun only once at his sister. Similarly, Interviewee 21 hid in the bushes until his wife and her lover met in front of the stable. He first killed the man, who was a village guard, with his hunting rifle, but he did not stop there. After taking the guard’s Kalashnikov, he continued firing on him by using the Kalashnikov. Then he killed his wife by using again his hunting rifle.

However, the cruelest aspect of the commission of the crime was that children witnessed their mother’s death in five cases. Although there was no premeditation when Interviewee 4 killed his half-sister and Interviewee 15 killed his wife, a child aged 3 in the first case and children aged 2 and 5 in the second case were present at the time of the murder. In three other cases (Interviewees 27, 32, and 33), there was premeditation, but the defendants did not care about whether the children were present at the time of murder. However, Interviewee 4 expressed his sorrow for this, and Interviewee 27, who killed his sister-in-law for being unfaithful to his brother, mentioned his regret for the murder that he committed 9 years ago in front of his nephew. He said,

At the time of the crime, my nephew was 12 years old. He witnessed the murder because he was at home. I still feel sad when I look at his face. He still visits me. But, I think that he still hates his mother for what she did to his father. (Interviewee 27, male)

The Perpetrators’ Profiles

Defendants’ relationships to their female victims

In accordance with what has been shown concerning the victims’ profiles, of the 34 male defendants, the most frequent perpetrators of honor killings were husbands, with 36% (13 cases). Fathers then took responsibility for 14% (5 cases); elder brothers also 14% (5 cases); sons, 11% (4 cases); younger brothers, 8% (3 cases); and paternal cousins, 6% (2 cases), with brothers-in-law, half-brothers-in-law, paternal nephews, and elder half-brothers each having 1 case (3%). There was no case committed by a hired assassin.¹⁵ In the opinion of this author, this is the result of the understanding and general tradition in Turkey that generally accords the responsibility of women to their husbands after marriage. Therefore, the fieldwork suggests that in cases of dishonorable conduct of wives, it falls to the husband to restore his honor, and the husband bears the right and responsibility for retaliation against the dishonorable conduct of his wife.

So, unlike southern Italian cases¹⁶ and contrary to the Palestinian and Israeli cases reported by Kressel (1981)¹⁷ and Sliman (2005),¹⁸ as far as cases committed in Turkey¹⁹ are concerned, the duty of restoring family honor in the case of dishonorable conduct of wives does not generally lie with the woman’s birth family. In Turkey, after marriage, the responsibility for retaliation against the dishonorable conduct of a wife is generally seen to be the duty of the husband. The husband may, in some instances, fail to carry out this duty. If he explicitly or implicitly rejects the task, then the woman’s birth family has the right to retaliate against the dishonorable conduct in a way that is required by cultural norms.²⁰

However, although in the author’s sample,²¹ 47% of the female victims were officially married and 8% of them were unofficially married, in some cases, husbands for some reason did not retaliate against the dishonorable conduct of their wives. Indeed, in nine cases where the spouses were not separated or divorced, and a wife was killed, the husband was not the murderer. In three cases, elder brothers; in two cases, paternal cousins; in one case, an elder half-brother; in one case, a brother-in-law; in one case, a son; and finally, in one case, a father, were the murderers. It should be noted that in all the cases where the husband was not responsible for the murder, the husbands were not closely related to their wives, and there were no maternal or paternal ties of kinship between the husband and the wife.

In two out of these nine cases, a man and a woman ran away and got married against the wishes of the woman’s family. Because the marriage was not conducted in a way required by cultural norms and bride price was not paid, the woman was killed, in one case, by a father, and in the other case, by an elder brother. In these two cases, husbands were neither involved nor supported the killing.

In two cases, the murderers were the elder brothers, and they killed their sisters where their fathers were deceased. In these cases, Interviewees 13 and 19 asserted that the names of their sisters were constantly on the lips of men, and they were the talk of their neighborhood. In each case, they described the husband as a “cuckold and tramp” by implying that he had lack of honor and manliness.

In two cases, the husbands were not aware of the dishonorable conduct of their wives. So, in the first case, the son (Interviewee 3) was a murderer and killed his mother, as his blind father did not know anything about his wife’s infidelity. In the second case, the husband was a truck driver, and his wife was betraying him when he was away from home, and his younger brother was aware of what had happened. So, the wife was killed by her brother-in-law (Interviewee 27).

In one case, the victim was the second wife of her husband and there was no official marriage between the victim and her husband. There was gossip that the victim was hanging about with some women allegedly involved in prostitution. The husband was aware of the gossip, and he left the victim and went back to his first wife. When he left, he said “I have nothing to do with her any more,” which implies that she is not his responsibility any more and that her birth family is responsible for her. So, she was killed by her elder half-brother (Interviewee 4), as he believed that she brought shame and stain on his family by being left by her husband and being rumored to be involved in prostitution.

In the remaining two cases, a wife was killed by a paternal cousin. In the first case, the victim was unofficially married, but her husband was her third partner and her other two husbands had left her. In the interview, the defendant, who was a paternal cousin to the victim, told the author that having more than one partner in a very short time cast a shadow on their family honor, and his uncle had died as he suffered from the shame and pain brought by his daughter. Although his uncle was against the idea of killing, he changed his opinion in his last days. So soon after his uncle’s death, the defendant (Interviewee 29) killed his paternal cousin, who was 7 months pregnant, and wounded her partner. In the second case, again an unofficially married wife was killed by a paternal cousin. But in that case, though she was a paternal cousin, the victim was like a sister to the defendant, and he used to call her sister. Therefore, in the neighborhood, everybody believed that the victim was the defendant’s sister. In the interview, he said,

If you do not eat garlic, your mouth does not smell of garlic. There were rumors about her. In spite of rumors she did not sit at her home, and her husband, excuse my language, was a sort of cuckold. One day I was sitting in front of my butcher’s shop and two men were talking with each other and suddenly they stared at me. I overheard them saying “this butcher is the brother of that tart.” I had enough and it was the last straw. (Interviewee 33, male)

As can be seen, though the defendant’s relationship to the victim is crucial in identifying who holds the right to kill a dishonorable woman, there are other factors that should be taken into account. For instance, Interviewee 7 mentioned social and economic factors in the interview. He said,

There were rumors about my mother. Everybody was telling me different things about my mother. One of my cousins told me that one day he saw shoes in front of our house and, after peeping through keyhole, he saw my mother having sex with one of my distant relatives. I asked, “if you are as honorable as you claimed why have not you acted after seeing this? Because, though she is my mother, she is also your aunt.” He said “I am the only breadwinner in my family; I have kids and mouths to feed. Even if I did, it would cause a blood feud, and her birth family could have retaliated against me. But you are her son and part of her birth family.” (Interviewee 7, male)

Having summarized the main issues related to male defendants’ relationships to their female victims, and noting some differences from the published data, the author now turns to discuss other issues related to the perpetrators’ profiles.

Defendant’s age and ethnic origin

Despite the fact that there are no sufficient data about the occurrence of honor killings in Turkey, journalists, academics, and even the United Nations’ special rapporteur on violence against women all claim that as far as cases committed in Turkey are concerned, a young man or boy within the family (Bilefsky, 2006; Ertürk, 2006, p. 10, par. 32; Husseini, 2009, pp. 145, 146; Maris & Saharso, 2004, p. 106) or the youngest (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001, p. 982) male member of the family is often chosen or assigned to commit the murder. In the absence of reliable and available data, such claims about the age of the defendants can have a misleading impact on regulations aiming to combat these killings and also on investigators struggling to prove their occurrence.

Although they did not define what they meant when they used the word “young,” it seems that academics like Sev’er and Yurdakul (2001) based their conclusions about the age of the defendants committing honor killing on Farac’s book Töre Kıskacında Kadın (The woman in the trap of mores), first published in 1998. Although his book is now in its fourth edition, Farac has maintained his views throughout about the characteristics of honor killings committed in Turkey.

According to Farac, in honor killing cases, a family council, which may include extended members of the family, first comes together and decides the fate of the “immoral” that is believed to have brought dishonor and stained the family honor. The youngest male member of the family who is under the age of 18 is often chosen to commit the crime, as he will receive a lenient sentence, and the execution is carried out in daylight so that everyone can witness the killing (Farac, 2006). At the time of writing his book and making his research, Farac was a local journalist and in his book, he reviewed only five murder cases and one attempted murder case committed between 1994 and 1998 in his home city Şanlıurfa where he worked. However, in only three out of the six cases was the killer under the age of 18. In Hatice’s case, the killer was 17, Sevda’s killer was 14, and, finally, Hacer’s killer was 15 years old. In five out of the six cases, he suggested that the family gathered, and the decision to kill was collectively taken by the family, despite the fact this issue was only proven in three cases in court. In the remaining two cases, nobody was found guilty of incitement to murder. In only four out of the six cases was the execution carried out publicly (Farac, 2006).

So, one may conclude from what the author has outlined above about Farac’s work that he had insufficient data to make a generalization or to reach a conclusion about the occurrence and characteristics of honor killings in Turkey. Even his own data were inconsistent to support his conclusion. However, his book created a myth about the characteristics of honor killings by creating a scene in the minds of many people of a 14 years old boy, in the name of honor, cutting a very young girl’s throat with a knife like a chicken in the middle of a city center square, in front of passersby and in daylight.

So, if what the published data say is true, a significant number of honor killing cases committed in Turkey are committed by killers under the age of 18. However, the fieldwork shows that in only 2 out of a total of 39 cases was the killer under the age of 18 at the time of the murder, which suggests that only 5% of all cases were committed by minor defendants.²² As Table 4 shows, the youngest male defendant was 15 years old at the time of the murder, whereas the oldest male defendant was 68 years old. When it comes to female defendants, out of a total of five female defendants, the youngest female defendant was 16 years old at the time of the murder, whereas the oldest was 42. Of the remaining female defendants, one was 20, one was 21, and one was 38 years old at the time of the murder. So, contrary to earlier opinion, defendants in the age group 19 to 24 years, whether male or female, seem the most prevalent group committing such crimes.

Table 4.

Male Defendants’ Age Group at the Time of the Murder (n = 34).

Defendants’ age (years)	Frequency
15-18	1
19-24	8
25-29	7
30-34	3
35-39	5
40-44	6
45-49	1
50-54	1
55-59	0
60-64	1
65-68	1

Apart from the age of the defendant at the time of the murder, another popular belief about the characteristics of honor killings committed in Turkey is that honor killing is more prevalent in Kurdish communities of Turkey and it is unknown in the Alevis²³ community. This view is reflected in the fact-finding mission report of the COI (2008).²⁴ This view is also supported by the Confederal Group of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), which is a group in the European Parliament at the time of writing this article made up of 34 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). By reflecting the view of, and statistics provided by, Feleknas Uca, a Kurdish member of the European Parliament, they suggested that

[P]olice statistics indicate [honor] killings are largely a Kurdish phenomenon . . . 43 percent of the crimes police classified as honor killings from 2000-2005 occurred in the east or southeast of the country, where Kurds are predominant. Of the remaining honor killings committed in the west, 45 percent were committed by people who were originally from the east or southeast. (GUE/NGL, 2006)

However, the author’s finding about the defendants’ ethnic origin is in no way close to what GUE/NGL or COI has been suggesting. Thus, in the author’s sample cases, 18 defendants (15 males, 3 females, amounting to 46%) described themselves and their ethnic origins as Turkish, 12 defendants (11 males, 1 female, amounting to 31%) described themselves as Kurdish, and 1 female defendant described herself as Rom-Gypsy. Contrary to what is suggested by COI (2008, para.1.30), it seems that honor killing is known and practiced by Alevis. Thus, three male defendants described themselves as Turkish-Alevi, Turkish-Yörük Alevi, and Kurdish-Alevi, respectively. The male defendants in two cases described themselves as Laz, which is an ethnic group living primarily on the Black Sea coastal regions of Turkey; in two cases, as Arabic; and in one case, as Zaza, which is an ethnic group primarily living in the Eastern Anatolia.

In light of these findings, it seems that in Turkey, Kurds are overrepresented among honor killers in police statistics. The assumption in such statistics regarding Kurds appears to be based on the area where the killing occurred or the geographic origin of the defendant, rather than how the defendants identify themselves in their ordinary life, in terms of their culture, ethnicity, language, and religion. Such assumptions or generalizations without sufficient evidence should be read with caution, because in Turkey, the number of people in each minority group is unknown.

Education, occupation, and income

The majority of the male defendants (59%) had no formal education beyond primary school, while three male and one female defendants stated that they had received no formal education whatsoever, yet had somehow learned how to read and write. Two male and two female defendants did not even know how to read and write. None of the male or female defendants had a university degree at the time of the murder, but at the time of the murder, one female defendant was a student at the university and one male defendant had left the university without completing his education.²⁵ Perhaps in accordance with their level of education,²⁶ the majority of the murders, where the murderer was a male, were committed by those having skilled (27%) or semi-skilled (24%) occupations, or by farmers (18%). The majority of the murders, 69%, were committed by male defendants who worked in jobs requiring physical labor, such as a concrete or construction worker (12%), a farmer or agricultural laborer (18%), or a furniture maker or painter (6%). None of a total of 39 cases were committed by a professional or high administrator,²⁷ which is a similar finding to the Greek cases (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969, p. 209), Lebanese cases (Hoyek et al., 2005), and Turkish cases committed in the Netherlands (Van Eck, 2003, pp. 199, 212).

As can be seen from Table 5, 47% of male defendants (16 cases) earned 1,000 Turkish Lira or more per month, which is greater than minimum salary regulations in force at the time.²⁸ In 7 cases, where the defendant used to work as a policeman, a miner, or in a European factory abroad, or was a White goods distributor, White goods seller, coffee shop owner, or driver/minibus owner before the murder, the defendants earned enough money to make themselves middle-class men in financial terms in Turkey. Only two female defendants had employed work, the first one as a peddler and cleaning lady and the second one as a farm worker, which used to bring them 0 to 250 Turkish Lira and 251 to 500 Turkish Lira per month, respectively.

Table 5.

Male Defendants’ Income per Month (n = 34).

Defendant’s income per month	Frequency
0-250 Turkish Lira	2
251-500 Turkish Lira	6
501-750 Turkish Lira	4
751-999 Turkish Lira	5
1,000 Turkish Lira and more	16
Dependent	1

In light of these findings, the author cannot agree with the view that men with little material wealth may be more likely to kill. In this context, it has been argued that when honor becomes an obsession, the poor are more possessive than the rich about their honor “since they have little else in the rigidly stratified societies they are a part of” (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001, p. 972). In the view of this author, the relationship between the economic status of the defendant and the probability of killing in the context of honor killing is totally irrelevant, as there are reported honor killing cases committed by, among others, a senior-level administrator, a civil servant, and a businessman (Husseini, 2009). Moreover, in the context of honor killing, the concept of honor is not necessarily associated with rank or social status, and it cannot be gained through personal action (Bourdieu, 1966).

The author now turns to discussing the profiles of the crime and some unfounded beliefs concerning characteristics of the crime committed in Turkey.

The Profiles of the Crime

The fieldwork shows that shooting is the most prevalent method used for the commission of honor killings by both male and female defendants (62%; 22 males, 2 females), which is a similar finding to the Turkish cases committed in the Netherlands (Van Eck, 2003, pp. 75, 266). Apart from shooting, male defendants also used stabbing (nine cases), strangling by other means (two cases), and a combination of shooting and stabbing (one case) for the commission of the murders. When it comes to female defendants, as explained above, two defendants used shooting for the commission of the murders; one killed the victim by hitting with an iron pipe; another defendant killed her elder sister, along with her father, mother, and elder brother, by strangling the victim; and, finally, in the infanticide case, the female defendant gave birth in the bathroom and then left the baby hidden among bushes on a freezing day. It can be said that these figures are the result of the general situation in Turkey where the rules to own a licensed gun, especially a hunting rifle, are flexible, and there is a market to buy an unlicensed gun.

Ten out of a total of 36 victims who were killed by a male defendant were killed by stabbing, in nine incidents. In six of these nine stabbing incidents, the defendants caused at least 10 wounds in each case. This reflects the degree of brutality and anger shown by the defendants. For example, Interviewee 15 stabbed his wife 10 times, Interviewee 3 stabbed his mother 55 times, Interviewee 25 stabbed his elder sister 26 times, and finally, Interviewee 7 stabbed his mother 25 times. However, in the interview, except for Interviewee 23, interviewees who brutally killed their victims by stabbing said that they only remembered two or three stabs that they had made. Although it has been suggested that decapitation (Chesler, 2010; Kressel, 1981), acid throwing (Khan, 2009; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969), stoning (Chesler, 2010; Husseini, 2009; Jaber, 2007; Van Eck, 2003), cutting off the penis (Van Eck, 2003), and burning (BBC, 2007; Chesler, 2010; Husseini, 2009; Kevorkian, 2003; Kressel, 1981) can be used as methods for the commission of honor killings and honor crimes, the author did not find any cases committed by using such methods.

However, during the fieldwork, the author found murder cases committed under the guise of an accident, or a suicide, and defendants therefore denied responsibility for the murder during the trial. In such situations, insecticide, a bottle of bleach, or poison mixed with food was generally used. Similarly, the literature also reflects honor killing cases committed under the guise of suicide, in which the defendant pushed the victim off a balcony (Hoyek et al., 2005, p. 126), or the victim was forced to drink sulfuric acid from a beaker, or to take poison (CEWLA, 2005, pp. 153, 154), or the victim was forced to hang herself (Yirmibesoglu, 2007, p. 173). Some murderers attempted to conceal their murder by staging a tractor accident (Farac, 2006, pp. 53-138), or a car accident (Husseini, 2009, p. 82), or by staging an accidental fire (Husseini, 2009 p. 127; Khan, 2009, p. 133).

As far as the analyzed cases are concerned, the methods used for the commission of the murder are dictated by the defendants’ personal situation, desire for the concealment of the murder, and the conditions and environment in which the murder takes place. Therefore, contrary to what is suggested by the Campaign Against Honour Killings in Turkey, the author found no relationship between the choice of weapon and the economic status of the defendant. Moreover, contrary to what is suggested by Kressel, the author found no evidence that can support the view that there are more and less honorable ways of committing an honor killing. According to Kressel, shooting is the most honorable way to commit an honor killing and strangling is the least honorable. Therefore, women tend to be killed in less honorable ways (Kressel, 1981, p. 147). However, the author’s findings do not support this view and show that the method chosen to commit an honor killing does not make it more or less honorable.

Contrary to such misinformation presented in the literature, if the murder is the result of a sudden loss of self-control, the murder is committed by using the first possible means that comes to hand. For instance, in the cases of Interviewees 16 and 30, the murder was the result of a sudden loss of self-control. So, in the case of Interviewee 16, the defendant killed his daughter when he was packing their clothes and other items for moving, and at the same time trying to convince his daughter to move with him to another town. In this case, the defendant’s daughter had a history of running away from home and hanging around with boys who allegedly had sex with her. Therefore, she was regarded as a tart, and the defendant was pressured and questioned by the community about whether he pimped his daughter. So, the defendant thought that moving to another town might solve his problem. However, when he was packing, his daughter objected to the idea of moving by saying that “I will do it my own way. I chose my path and I am happy with it,” and the defendant killed his daughter by using a rope that he was using for packing. Similarly, in the case of Interviewee 30, the defendant killed his daughter by using a tie and killed his wife by using a headscarf that she wore. In both cases, due to the conditions and environment in which the killing took place, the method of attack was not deliberately chosen by the defendants. The decision how to commit the murder was a result of perhaps an impulsive and instant behavior.

The methods used for the commission of the murder are also affected by the defendant’s personal situation. For instance, Interviewee 17, who was 15 years old at the time of the murder and scared to use a gun, decided to commit the murder by using a knife. But, as his older sister struggled after the first stab, and other family members heard noises, he got nervous and stopped stabbing and started to shoot. Similarly, Interviewee 28, who killed his mother and half-brother, decided that both his mother and half-brother should die together. Therefore, he used a gun. In the interview, he said,

I said to myself “if I am going to do it, I need to make it sure that they both will die. So, I should kill the boy first.” I did it in the same way as I thought. First, I needed a gun, I found the gun and shot the boy first, two bullets to the head, and then she came from the kitchen shouted “what did you do!” I shot the woman too, two bullets to head. (Interviewee 28, male)²⁹

Finally, the decision of how to commit the murder can be affected by a desire to conceal it. Thus, in the case of female Interviewee 35, who abandoned her new born baby, she chose to hide the body in the bushes.

It has been suggested that in relation to honor killings, the time of attack is selected “in consideration of conflicting demands: restoration of honor and prevention of involvement by a representative of the law. The former dictates that the deed be made public and the latter that it be kept quiet” (Kressel, 1981, p. 147). However, some caution is required. In the author’s sample, 15 cases were committed in the evening, 12 cases in the morning, 7 cases at noon, 4 cases after midnight, and 1 case before dawn. The fieldwork suggests that cases committed after midnight or before dawn are not planned and the time of attack is not specifically chosen to conceal the murder. Similarly, in murder cases committed in the daytime, the time of attack is not always specifically chosen to make the execution public; and if killing is not planned, the time of attack is not chosen at all. Thus, though Interviewee 7 committed the murder before dawn by stabbing his mother 25 times, he did not feel that he needed to conceal the murder. Indeed, he carried the corpse from the house to the street and to make everyone know that honor was restored, he shouted:

You rumored that this woman is dishonorable. Look! I did. I killed her. You, all of you are dishonorable too. I will kill all of you. (Interviewee 7, male)

Similarly, in four cases, the murder was committed after midnight, but only two of these murders were planned. In the two remaining cases, Interviewees 15 and 16 committed a murder after a quarrel and loss of self-control. Finally, of 12 cases committed in the morning, only Interviewee 25 felt that he had to make everybody know that the execution was carried out and honor was restored. Therefore, he shouted “I cleansed my honor, leave me alone.”

Discussion

Up to this point, the author has tried to show that many unfounded beliefs or assumptions exist in the context of honor killings in general and in Turkey. As seen, however, the analyses completed thus far do not allow us to make a clear-cut distinction between honor killings and other murders. So, the author will conclude his analysis by discussing whether there were any rituals carried out by the defendant before, during, or after the offense that differentiate these killings from other murders. There is a popular belief in Turkey that in honor killing cases, defendants get their victims to wear special garments before the murder. For instance, in the case of Yasemin Kınık where the victim had married a man against her father’s wish, the Turkish Dailies reported that to show that the murder was committed for honor, the defendant got his daughter to wear black and dark clothes before he killed her (Hürriyet, 2007; Milliyet, 2007; Radikal, 2007). Similarly, a Turkish soap opera, Yersiz yurtsuz [The homeless] first broadcast on March 29, 2007, contained a scene in its first episode where a father, Emrullah (Ferdi Tayfur), was pressured by his brothers to kill his daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock. After getting his daughter to wear special clothes that had been prepared for her wedding, Emrullah took his daughter to a river on a raft and forced her to commit suicide (Yersiz Yurtsuz [The homeless], 2007).

To understand whether such popular belief has any foundation, the author asked during the interview whether the defendant performed any rituals before, during, or after the offense. The author especially asked those defendants who did not volunteer information about whether they got the victim to wear special garments before the murder, or whether they repeated or asked the victim to repeat the word of shahadah (which is the expression of faith: La ilaha illa Allah. Muhammadun rasulullah. [“There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”]), or make a preparation for the prayer and ablutions. Some defendants found such questions strange and the author replied “I just wanted to be sure whether you did or not, as it is a detail perhaps you might have forgotten when you told your story.” Interviewee 7, who stabbed his mother 25 times, said,

This is what you do when you slaughter a chicken. I was not slaughtering a chicken. Why should I repeat the word of shahadah? (Interviewee 7, male)

So, in neither the accounts of the defendants, nor in the court rulings, did the author find reference to any ritual that was carried out before or during the murder to differentiate these killings from other kinds of killings.³⁰

When it comes to rituals after the murder, it has been suggested that to announce that the family honor is restored, a painted black stone is erected on the victim’s grave (Cumhuriyet Dergi, 2003; Onal, 2008, p. 163), the walls of the victim’s house are whitewashed (Cumhuriyet Dergi, 2003; Onal, 2008, p. 162), or a white flag is flown on the roof of the victim’s house (Cumhuriyet Dergi, 2003 ) to symbolize purification and innocence. None of the defendants gave such an account. Only Interviewee 34 mentioned a ritual that might convey a message. He said,

In my community you cannot abduct a girl or run away with her. These two men came here and my sisters were fooled by their appearance and ran away with them . . . This is not acceptable . . . I decided to shoot my sisters and their husbands. . . I found the house of one of my sisters. I knocked at the door, she opened it and I shot. I shot eight times, four to head, four to chest and finished all bullets in the magazine. I took one bullet from my pocket and threw it on the corpse. I just wanted to leave a message that I did not close the book on this matter and I had a spare bullet and this bullet eventually will find my sister’s husband. (Interviewee 34, male)

This is the only ritual related by the participants, and it cannot be regarded as a characteristic for honor killing cases. It could be seen in any murder or revenge killing case where the killer wanted to leave a message that there will be more victims.

In honor killing cases, it is said that there is a tendency among the defendants and the victim’s family not to accept the responsibility of the victim’s funeral and, as a proof of disgrace, to disown the dead body (Campaign Against Honour Killings in Turkey; Cumhuriyet Dergi, 2003; Husseini, 2009, p.107; Jafri, 2008, pp.62, 63; Onal, 2008, pp. 95, 200; Van Eck, 2003, pp.64-66). Sometimes the defendant or the eldest member of the family may ask the family not to mourn, or not to accept condolences. In these circumstances, the municipalities and local authorities accept the responsibility of the funeral, and victims may be buried in a part of the cemetery that is allocated for disowned bodies, orphans, and the homeless.

As explained by Campbell (1992), since Ancient Greece, the denial of a proper burial has been seen as a mark of dishonor, which implies the extinction of the victim’s name in the memory of this world and, in the world of the dead, a sentence of exile for the soul of the dead person. It was regarded as a terrifying fate for the Homeric warriors. A dead person’s fame can be preserved and remembered by conducting a proper funeral, praying and reciting their name. By disowning a dead body and denying a proper funeral in honor killing cases, the community, defendants, and families set an example to all other women by implying that the victim cannot be treated like an honorable person whose fame can be preserved after her death by reciting her name and visiting her grave. For them, the victim of an honor killing does not deserve this.

The fieldwork shows that in one case, the defendant specifically asked his family to disown his sister’s body, not to accept the responsibility of a funeral, and not to mourn or accept condolences. He said,

I wanted it to set an example to all others. The municipality accepted the responsibility of funeral and buried her. She was buried in a different cemetery, not in a cemetery where our family members were buried. (Interviewee 13, male)

In two cases (Interviewees 8 and 18) where the defendant killed his wife, the families of the victim and the defendant both disowned the victim’s dead body without being instructed by the defendant. The victim was buried by the municipality and denied having a proper funeral. Similarly, in the case of Interviewee 23, who killed his mother, both the victim’s birth family and the family of her ex-husband disowned the dead body and the municipality buried the victim. In the case of Interviewee 29, who killed his paternal cousin, two elder members of the community accepted the body and took on the responsibility of the funeral. Neither the victim’s nor the defendant’s family members attended the funeral.

In three cases, there was a reluctance among the victim’s family to attend the funeral. For instance, in the case of Interviewee 7, who killed his mother, only his maternal aunt tried to organize a proper funeral and burial. Again, in the case of female Interviewee 38, people showed reluctance to attend the funeral of the man who was killed, to mark that the man was involved in dishonorable conduct. Concerning the funeral of the victim, she said,

People first heard that the victim was killed in a car accident. But, then when they came to the mosque for the funeral and burial, they learnt that he was killed by me and my husband for honor. So, they started to leave the mosque without attending prayer and funeral. That was told to me by the imam who conducted the funeral when he came to visit me in the prison. (Interviewee 38, female)

In the case of Interviewees 6 and 9, Interviewee 6 said, “my family did not attend my wife’s funeral as they believed that what had happened was her fault,” and Interviewee 9 said, “for fear of being killed by my wife’s family, my family did not attend the funeral or send their condolences and there is still hostility between two families.”

The author believes that the fear of retaliation should not be underestimated when one considers the reasons behind the reluctance of anybody to attend or accept the responsibility of the funeral.

In three cases (the cases of male Interviewee 12 and female Interviewees 35 and 37), judicial authorities buried the victim after an autopsy because the victim was killed in secret and the victim’s identity was at first unknown. In the remaining cases, the victim was buried properly and there was no discrimination against the victim. So apart from a tendency among the defendant’s and the victim’s family not to accept the responsibility of the victim’s funeral and to disown her dead body as proof of disgrace, there is no characteristic or ritual that can be regarded as marking out honor killing cases or that differentiates these killings from other murders.

Conclusion

Although it has its own limitations, on the basis of convincing empirical data, this article has attempted to illustrate that it is possible to provide better explanations for honor killings. As shown, on the basis of weak generalization rather than robust research evidence, many unfounded beliefs or assumptions exist in Turkey. Those questionable, and often totally unfounded, claims and assumptions have a misleading impact on regulations aiming to combat these killings and also upon the investigators and officers struggling to prevent their occurrence. In the view of this author, as most of the existing literature which this article has reflected, has unduly attempted to address the issue of whether honor killings constitute a culturally distinct form of violence and overlooked whether honor killings can be explained within the existing framework of theories of violence, such unfounded claims and assumptions have inevitably been created. However, the issue of whether honor killings constitute a culturally distinct form of violence requires some caution, and it should be discussed on the basis of convincing empirical data rather than the unconvincing research evidence upon which many research studies have relied.³¹

In communities where honor killings tend to occur, and in Turkey where this study has focused empirically, mutual relationships between males and females including marriage, premarital, and adulterous sex are strictly controlled and regulated by institutions and associations in accordance with their cultural norms (Doğan, 2011). Little is known about how and why an honor culture that inspires violence emerged in the first place. But even though the social conditions that helped to frame those ideas in the past have totally disappeared, the ideas endure with a new mentality or rationale, and are transmitted from generation to generation.

Addressing the issue of honor killing requires the development of a variety of methods and the formulation and integration of a multi-agency response program. Much more primary and qualitative research is required, particularly surrounding the perpetrators’ experience and perspectives, before methods can be devised to address the inherent male violence that is involved. In addition to this, there needs to be significant investment in a program to determine the most suitable way of providing appropriate female-centric support services. It is hoped that in light of the unique interview material corroborated by both court rulings and prison files, this article has demonstrated that there are significant conceptual cultural forces at play in the case of Turkey, and thus, it has made an original contribution to the literature by constructing the profiles of victims, perpetrators, and also crimes, more fully.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Professor Martin Wasik from Keele University for his valuable comments on early versions of this article. This article also greatly benefited from the thoughtful comments of John Mark Spencer, and Anne Kubai, associate professor at Uppsala University Hugo Valentin Centrum.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Recep Doğan graduated from Ankara University, Department and School of Law, in 1997. After getting his LLM in child law degree from Keele University, he received his PhD in November 2010 from Keele University with his thesis “Honour Killings in Turkey: Culture, Subjectivism, and Provocation” that is the largest body of the research so far that reflects the voice of the defendants who committed murder in the name of honor and discusses the recent changes in the English law of provocation put into force by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. He is interested in gender sexuality and law studies, violence studies, social work law, child rights, criminal law, criminal justice, and qualitative studies.

References

Alonso

A. A.

(1996). Rationalizing patriarchy: Gender, domestic violence, and law in Mexico. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 2, 29-47.

Anderson

(2008). Violence against women: State responsibilities in international human rights law to address harmful “masculinities.” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 26, 173-197.

Baker

N. V.

Gregware

P. R.

Cassidy

M. A.

(1999). Family killing fields: Honor rationales in the murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5, 164-184.

Baumert

Thimm

(Producers), Deiß

Goll

(Authors/Directors). (2012, February 24). Verlorene Ehre: Der Irrweg der Familie Sürücü [Lost honor: The story of the Sürücü family] [German TV documentary]. Berlin, Germany: Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, RBB, (Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasting), Arbeitsgemeinschaft – der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten – der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ARD, (Consortium of the public-law broadcasting institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany).

BBC. (Producer). (2007, December 4). Honour kills [TV documentary]. London, England: BBC, BBC3.

Begikhani

(2005). Honour-based violence among the Kurds: The case of Iraqi Kurdistan. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 209-229). London, England: Zed Books.

Bettiga-Boukerbout

M. G.

(2005). “Crimes of honour” in the Italian Penal Code: An analysis of history and reform. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 230-244). London, England: Zed Books.

Bilefsky

(2006, July 16). How to avoid honor killing in Turkey? Honor suicide. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/europe/16turkey.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Bourdieu

(1966). The sentiment of honour in Kabyle society. In Peristiany

J. G.

(Ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society (pp. 191-241). London, England: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

10.

Campaign against honour killings in Turkey. Retrieved at February 25, 2009 from http://honourkillings.gn.apc.org/facts.htm

11.

Campbell

J. K.

(1992). The Greek hero. In Peristiany

J. G.

Pitt-Rivers

(Eds.), Honor and grace in anthropology (pp. 129-149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance. (2005). “Crimes of honour” as violence against women in Egypt. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 137-159). London, England: Zed Books.

13.

Chesler

(2010). Worldwide trends in honor killings. The Middle East Quarterly, 17, 3-11.

14.

Country of Origin Information Service of the UK Border Agency. (2008, February 11-20). Report of fact finding mission Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/489c167e2.html

15.

Cressey

D. R.

(1953). Other people’s money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement. New York, NY: Free Press.

16.

Cumhuriyet Dergi (2003, June 15). Recm günü yaşananlar [What happened on the day of stoning]. Retrieved at June 4, 2014, from http://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/katalog/4509/sayfa/2003/6/15/5.xhtml

17.

Delaney

(1991). The seed and the soil, gender and cosmology in Turkish village society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

18.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A Case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

19.

Doğan

(2011). Is honor killing a “Muslim phenomenon”? Textual interpretations and cultural representations. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 31, 423-440.

20.

Doğan

(2014). Different cultural understandings of honor that inspire killing: An inquiry into the defendant’s perspective. Homicide Studies. Advance online publication, first published March 12, 2014. doi:10.1177/1088767914526717

21.

Ertürk

(2006). Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (Addendum: Mission to Turkey, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], 2007 January 5, [A/HRC/4/34/Add.2]).Retrieved from http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/100/90/PDF/G0710090.pdf?OpenElement

22.

Faqir

(2001). Intrafamily femicide in defence of honour: The case of Jordan. Third World Quarterly, 22, 65-82.

23.

Farac

(2006). Töre Kıskacında Kadın [The woman in the trap of mores] (4th ed.). İstanbul, Turkey: Günizi Yayıncılık.

24.

GUE/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. (2006). Retrieved at October 23, 2006 from http://www.guengl.eu/showPage.jsp?ID=3265&PR=0&AREA=1342&GRP=0&SITE=0&CH=1&TYPE=1&FILENAME=showPage.jsp&INTERNAL=1&ISSUE=0&POPUP=0

25.

Hadidi

Kulwicki

Jahshan

(2001). A review of 16 cases of honour killings in Jordan in 1995. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 114, 357-359.

26.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2005). Can people’s patriarchal ideology predict their beliefs about wife abuse? The case of Jordanian men. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 545-567.

27.

Hoyek

Sıdawi

R. R.

Mrad

A. A.

(2005). Murders of women in Lebanon: “crimes of honour” between reality and the law. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 111-136). London, England: Zed Books.

28.

Husseini

(2009). Murder in the name of honour. Oxford, UK: One World Publications.

29.

Hürriyet (2007, July 5). 1.5 aylık hamile Yasemin de ‘töre’ kurbanı [1.5 months pregnant Yasemin another victim of mores.]. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ucuncusayfa/6837024.asp?gid=205

30.

Icli

T. G.

(1994). Blood feud in Turkey: A sociological analysis. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 69-74.

31.

Jaber

(2007, November 4). “Honour” killings grow as girl, 17, stoned to death. The Sunday Times, p. 25.

32.

Jafri

A. H.

(2008). Honour killing, dilemma, ritual, understanding. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

KA-MER (Women’s Centre). (2004). No more “If onlys” (Project for the development of permanent methods in the struggle against killings committed in the name of “honour” in the Southeast and East Anatolia Regions, 2004 Report). Diyarbakir, Turkey: Berdan Publishing.

34.

Kandiyoti

(1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2, 274-290.

35.

Kevorkian

N. S.

(2003). Reexamining femicide: Breaking the silence and crossing “scientific” borders. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 581-608.

36.

Kevorkian

N. S.

(2005). Researching women’s victimisation in Palestine: A socio-legal analysis. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 160-180). London, England: Zed Books.

37.

Khafagy

(2005, May 17-20). Honour killing in Egypt. Paper presented at Expert Group Meeting “Violence against women: Good practices in combating and eliminating violence against women,” UN Division for the Advancement of Women, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw-gp-2005/docs/experts/khafagy.honorcrimes.pdf

38.

Khan

A. N.

(2009). Country report—Pakistan. Report prepared for the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI). Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no69/10_P131-143.pdf

39.

Kim

J. Y.

Sung

(2000). Conjugal violence in Korean American families: A residue of the cultural tradition. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 331-345.

40.

Kressel

G. M.

(1981). Sororicide/filiacide: Homicide for family honour. Current Anthropology, 22, 141-158.

41.

Kulczycki

Windle

(2011). Honor killings in the Middle East and North Africa: A systematic review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 17, 1442-1464.

42.

Maris

Saharso

(2004). Honour killing: A case for cultural defence? In Soeteman

, (Ed.), Proceedings 20th IVR World Congress 2001. Beiheft ARSP (Archiv für Rechts- und Sozial Philosophie) 3: Global Problems (pp. 105-113). Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.

43.

Milliyet (2007, July 5). Yine töre vahşeti! 1.5 aylık hamile kızını tek kurşunla öldürdü [Again the horror of mores! He killed his 1.5 months pregnant daughter with one shot]. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/07/05/son/sontur39.asp

44.

Onal

(2008). Honour killing: Stories of men who killed. London, England: Saqi Books.

45.

Prime Ministry Human Rights Presidency. (2007). Honour killings report. Retrieved from http://rojwomen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/honour_killings_report_by_govt_2007.pdf

46.

Radford

(1992). Introduction. In Radford

Russell

D. E. H.

(Eds.), Femicide: The politics of women killing (pp. 3-12). New York, NY: Twayne.

47.

Radikal (2007, July 6). Boşanmak istedi öldürüldü [She was killed as she wanted to divorce], Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=226116

48.

Raj

Silverman

(2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 367-398.

49.

Safilios-Rothschild

(1969). “Honour” crimes in contemporary Greece. The British Journal of Sociology, 20, 205-218.

50.

Sev’er

Yurdakul

(2001). Culture of honor, culture of change: A feminist analysis of honor killings in rural Turkey. Violence Against Women, 7, 964-998.

51.

Sliman

A. T.

(2005). Culture, national minority and the state: Working against the “crime of family honour” within the Palestinian community in Israel. In Welchman

Hossain

(Eds.), “Honour” crimes, paradigms, and violence against women (pp. 181-198). London, England: Zed Books.

52.

The report of the ad hoc Parliamentary Committee on “crimes in the name of honour, violence against women and children.” (2006). [Töre ve namus cinayetleri ile kadınlara ve çocuklara yönelik şiddetin sebeplerinin arastırılarak alınması gereken önlemlerin belirlenmesi amacıyla kurulan meclis arastırması komisyon raporu]. Retrieved from http://www.kadininstatusu.gov.tr/upload/kadininstatusu.gov.tr/mce/eski_site/Pdf/tbmmkom-bolum1.pdf

53.

United Nations Development Programme & United Nations Population Fund. (2005). The dynamics of honor killings in Turkey prospects for action. New York, NY: Filiz Kardam (Ed.).

54.

Van Eck

(2003). Purified by blood: Honour killings amongst Turks in the Netherlands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

55.

Yersiz yurtsuz [The homeless], [Turkish Television Drama Series], (2007), Avsar

(Producer). (2007, March 29). Istanbul, Turkey: ATV Television.

56.

Yirmibesoglu

(2007). Toprağa düşen sevdalar: fTöre ve namus gerekçesiyle işlenen cinayetler [Loves fallen onto soil: The murders committed in the name of honour and customs]. İstanbul, Turkey: Hürriyet Gazetecilik ve Matbaacılık.

57.

Z Raporu [Z Report], (2005). [Turkish television broadcast]. Onal

Altan

(Producers). (2005, June 22). Istanbul, Turkey: Star Television.

The Profiles of Victims,Perpetrators,and Unfounded Beliefs in Honor Killings in Turkey

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review 2

Method

Research Site, Participants, and the Selection Process

The Structure and Characteristics of the Interview

Findings

The Victims’ Profiles

The Perpetrators’ Profiles

Defendants’ relationships to their female victims

Defendant’s age and ethnic origin

Education, occupation, and income

The Profiles of the Crime

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

Author Biography

References

Literature Review²