The Dynamics of Honor Killings and the Perpetrators’ Experiences

The Concept of Culture Conflict

In communities where honor killings tend to occur, there is a “culture conflict” (Sellin, 1938) or “normative conflict” (Cressey, 1968). This means that certain types of people within society have very different “conduct norms” (Sellin, 1938) about appropriate ways to behave in specific situations, and particularly in cases of dishonorable conduct. Thus, when conflict arises, or whenever a person struggles to find an answer to whether an act or behavior is dishonorable, he follows these conduct norms and acts in accordance with them.

Indeed, “human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them” (Vold & Bernard, 1986, p. 211); and the meaning of any social phenomenon is derived from, or arises out of, the interactions that one has with one’s fellows. In communities where honor killings tend to occur, people are surrounded by those for whom the loss of honor requires killing or violence in return. As a result of interaction over time with those for whom the loss of honor requires killing or violence in return, the individual, as argued by Sutherland (1947, pp. 6-7), depending on the frequency, duration, and intensity of his association with these views, comes to accept and to learn that killing, though itself criminal, is the correct response. Those ideas in a particular culture may have arisen in the past for specific historical reasons, but they have been transmitted from generation to generation, with a new rationale, even after those original social conditions had amended or disappeared. For so long as the norms endure, and as long as the communities transmit the concept of honor that inspires violence from generation to generation, honor killing will tend to occur.

In light of above discussion, it seems that it is the power of the ideas themselves, rather than poverty or other particular social conditions, that leads to personal violence in honor killings. Thus, Wolfgang (1958, pp. 188-189), in his famous study of homicide in Philadelphia, found that a significant number of homicides that occurred among lower-class people resulted from very trivial events that took on great importance because of mutually held expectations in the group about how people should behave. However, this does not necessarily mean that individuals are programmed by their culture such that their behavior is predetermined. The author does not agree with the “inability thesis,” which asserts that one’s culture can determine one’s behavior so as to make one unable to use his moral judgments to assess the reasonability of complying with the law (Tunick, 2004, p. 397).

Under these circumstances, as Kornhauser (1978) and Sutherland (1947) have argued, after committing a homicide a perpetrator may tend to regard his criminal behavior in much the same way as religious persons value their traditional and deeply held religious practices. Or, as Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1981) have argued, he may not necessarily champion his behavior, but may well believe that he has done what was expected, or what he was supposed to do. In this context, the understanding of patterns, dynamics, and cultural factors that precede honor killing is far more significant than the act of killing itself.

Identifying such patterns and dynamics is crucial for two reasons. First of all, if these dynamics and patterns are ignored or underestimated, honor killing cases committed under the guise of an accident, or a suicide, cannot be solved and unscrupulous defendants may escape justice. For instance, in the United Kingdom the murder of Tulay Gören by her father was not solved until 2010, as the police underestimated dynamics within the family that forced Tulay’s mother, Hanim Gören, to hide the truth. The case was solved when the police provided full protection for Hanim Gören (BBC News, 2009).

Second, patterns and dynamics in honor killings are important to prevent cultural stereotypes, mistaken beliefs, and flawed assumptions in the legal and academic conceptualization of the phenomenon (Doğan, 2010, 2013). By supplying this missing focus, the current article has much to offer to the understanding of violence and honor killings. The next section describes the method followed for the purposes of this research after which findings are described from the current research that reflect concepts, patterns, and social dynamics emerging from perpetrators’ accounts. The article concludes with a discussion of why the majority of transgressions of the honor code do not provoke a murder despite powerful cultural motivations and an environment conducive to its occurrence.

Research Site

As noted above, this article is the final piece of a trilogy written by this author, and based on the same data set (Doğan, 2010). The findings reflected here are based on fieldwork for which the author visited 65 prisons in Turkey and conducted interviews with prisoners who have committed and have been found guilty of murder committed in the name of honor (namus). 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 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.

According to the statistics of the Turkish Ministry of Justice ⁶ 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. Given the number of convicted prisoners serving their sentences in the visited prisons ⁷ and the population of the cities and towns for which the visited prisons provide prison and detention facilities, the fieldwork covers sufficient participants and data to make general observations and to draw tentative conclusions. However, this study also has its own limitations and, therefore, it would be implausible to claim that in all honor killings committed in Turkey, the perpetrators experience the same or similar dynamics discussed in this article. Nevertheless, a number of general claims can be induced, with the caveat that each perpetrator’s experience is unique and each perpetrator may internalize differently the normative system and values of his community.

The Selection Process

The current study focuses on male offenders and female victims. So as not to jeopardize any ongoing trials, any prisoner whose trial was pending was left outside the scope of the research. In addition, prisoners found guilty of attempted honor killings, where the perpetrator attempted to kill one of his female relatives because of honor, but she somehow managed to survive, 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 focus on the reasons behind their failure rather than providing a full account of all the circumstances.

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, all murder cases in each visited prison, including all court rulings and personal records, were reviewed. This permitted capturing 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 where the court itself established that honor was the main motive behind the murder. In this context, words or expression 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

As the author wanted to give the prisoners an opportunity to be “the speaker of the text” (Harding & Norberg, 2005, p. 2011), 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 on his findings related to the second part of the interview.

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 gave more freedom to the defendant to talk about the attitude of people toward the defendant and the defendant’s own feelings. ⁸ Each interview took 2 hr or slightly longer. Permission was not granted to record either the voice or image of the prisoner, thus the author took detailed notes during the interview. To reflect the accounts of the participants accurately and guard against possible biases, all interview notes were processed and converted into “write ups” by typing immediately after the interview. Therefore, normally only one interview was undertaken each day.

All the interviews were conducted in Turkish by the author, a native speaker of both Turkish and Kurdish. Each prisoner met the author in advance of the interview, and at each prison, the interview was carried out in a private room. A participant information sheet and informed consent form were designed after seeking advice from the Ethics Committee to deal with the ethical research issues.

Data and Analysis

Using the selection method described above, the author identified a total of 88 cases committed by a total of 97 prisoners, 86 males, and 11 females. In 6 cases, more than one perpetrator was involved in the murder so the number of the perpetrators and potential interviewees was more than the number of the committed honor killing cases. The author invited a total of 92 available prisoners to take part in the research. Sixty-one prisoners, 54 males and 7 females, took part in the research by signing the consent form, but 31 prisoners, 28 males, and 3 females, declined to participate. Further screening process took place that reduced the number of the participants and analyzed cases even further.

In spite of the author’s meticulous approach, in some cases after conducting interviews, what first appeared as murder cases committed in the name of honor were actually not, and honor was not the perpetrator’s 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 that 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.

However, due to the length and scope of this article, the account of female prisoners, the profiles of perpetrators, victims, and crimes, will not be analyzed here. ⁹ Therefore, the findings of the fieldwork here reflect 34 different incidents and only the views of 34 male prisoners. It should be noted that in the case of Interviewee 23, there was more than one perpetrator. In that case, the perpetrator committed the murder along with his younger brother who was released before the author’s fieldwork and did not take part in the research. These 34 incidents caused the death of 36 victims. As there was more than one victim in the cases of Interviewees 23 and 30, the number of victims is greater than the number of the incidents and participants.

The author used NVivo 8 to assist him with the analysis and management of qualitative data. A close thematic analysis method was used for the categorization and analysis of the accounts of the perpetrators (Kvale & Brinkman, 2008). This initially entailed reading every interview transcript and coding it by using the “node” function of NVivo 8. Then, by using “the constant comparison method” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 101-116) and asking when, why, and under what conditions these themes occur in the text, the author developed these categories into more general analytic frameworks. In this context, codes were initially constructed around the following major themes: rumor and suspicion as instigating events, techniques used to neutralize the killing, pressure to kill, attempts to escape from the publicity of dishonorable conduct, alternatives to restore honor without seeking violence, feelings of regret, and the probability of reoffending. All of these major themes are reflected and discussed below.

Rumor and Suspicion as Instigating Events

Published data suggest that in many honor killing cases, the chain of events that culminated in the murder began with a mere suspicion or a rumor that a female relative has defied accepted cultural norms by being disobedient or behaving improperly (Faqir, 2001, p. 70; Farac, 2006, pp. 27,105; Hoyek, Sıdawi, & Mrad, 2005, p. 131). If we leave aside the cases where the perpetrator himself learnt of the dishonorable conduct (Interviewees 2, 3, and 15), or due to the nature of the event, the dishonorable conduct was suddenly revealed, such as learning of the pregnancy of a sister (Interviewee 26) or daughter (Interviewee 30), or learning that a sister (Interviewee 34) or a daughter (Interviewee 10) has run away from home to a lover, or hearing a confession of involvement in prostitution (Interviewee 23), in the remaining cases the fieldwork supports the published data and shows that the events that led to the murder were generally instigated or fueled by a rumor that a female relative had defied accepted cultural norms by being disobedient or behaving improperly.

The ways in which perpetrators heard the rumors or gossip varies. Sometimes perpetrators heard the rumors themselves. Sometimes their friends or neighbors told them, as happened in the case of Interviewees 6 and 28, and sometimes they might overhear people’s conversation about rumors (Interviewees 27 and 31). Rumors might give the perpetrator all explanation or proof for which he has been looking. The perpetrator may have noticed that the female relative has been behaving differently, and the rumor makes the perpetrator more suspicious and vigilant and fuels his concern that the female relative is involved in a dishonorable conduct.

For instance, Interviewees 13 and 33 said,

I heard rumors that my sister was on the bad way. ¹⁰ As of hearing that, I started to live like a dead person. My concern was whether other people knew about the rumors . . . The people she used to hang around with were known as tarts . . . This went on almost a year. One day, I saw her in front of a bakery. She used to wear a head scarf. But, I saw that she got her hair color changed, wore a colored contact lens, make-up and no head scarf. Seeing such changes for a woman who used to wear a head scarf made me sure that the rumors were true. (Interviewee 13, age 43) ¹¹

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 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, age 30)

Interviewee 5, who killed his daughter, said,

It was one and a half year before the crime. My younger daughter and my wife started to distance themselves from my eldest daughter. The talk of my neighbors and their behavior gave me the impression that there was a problem. In the beginning, I did not know why they behaved in such a way . . . One day, I saw my eldest daughter in a car. I followed her, she entered into a hotel. On the same day, I talked with her. She told me that she would get a divorce and she has actually seen three different men up to now. So, I learnt what was going on. But, I could not understand how my daughter changed from being a shy girl to being such a social character. (Interviewee 5, age 63)

Similarly, Interviewee 23 who, along with his brother, killed his mother and sister after hearing them admit that they were involved in prostitution said,

After nine years of separation, when we [interviewee and his younger brother] first saw our mum, her head was covered and she was wearing a scarf. Then, her clothes and appearance were changed. We even saw that she wore décolleté clothes on her body or clothes through which you can see her body. We were surprised. This sort of wearing started to disturb and upset us. There were disturbing and embarrassing phone conversations between her and men. First my brother and I thought to ourselves and said “maybe they are friends, yes they can be friends.” But, on the other hand, it gave us the hump and we became uneasy and suspicious. (Interviewee 23, age 28)

These accounts suggest that a combination of suspicion, rumors, and change in behavior sets in motion a chain of events that ends up with murder. It also suggests that as the change in the appearance and behavior of his victim has been so great that the perpetrator finds it hard to believe that it is the same person that he has loved and known for so long. That is why even after the murder, the perpetrator tends to disassociate himself from his victim. In this context, among the participants two distinct tendencies emerge. In the first, due to the dishonorable conduct of the victim, being associated with the victim brings an unbearable burden for the perpetrator. Therefore, the perpetrator tends to disassociate himself from his victim by denying her very existence, or putting himself in a position to say that he never experienced what he experienced, or that what he did was the right thing to do. This tendency can be seen either implicitly or explicitly (Husseini, 2009, pp. 128-129; Onal, 2008) in the words of the perpetrators. For instance, during the interview, Interviewee 23, who killed his mother and sister after hearing that they were involved in prostitution, used the word “this” or “that” many times when he referred to his mother, and when he referred to both his sister and mother together, he used the word “these” or “these two.” Moreover, in the interview he said,

I do not call them mother and sister any more. I presume that this event never took place, never happened. So, as soon as I am released, I am going to get her name erased from my birth certificate and identity card. I do not even want to deal with her maiden name or name in any procedure. (Interviewee 23, age 28)

Similarly, for Interviewee 28 to accept that his mother and his half-brother were having an affair was an unbearable burden. Therefore, during the interview, he avoided using the word “mother” or “brother.” During the interview, whenever he referred to his mother he preferred to use the word “this” or “woman,” and whenever he referred to his half-brother he used the word “boy.” When he referred to both he used the word “these.” He described the affair between his mother and half-brother as “a shame of blood that always follows you.”

In a second distinct tendency, the perpetrator does not deny the existence of the victim and his relationship to the victim. After killing he still accepts that the victim is his daughter, mother, sister, and so on. But, as the change in the appearance and behavior of his victim has been so great he finds it hard to believe that it is the same person that he has loved and known for so long. Such tendency is seen in the above-mentioned case of Interviewees 5, 13, and 23, and also in the case of Interviewees 7, 32, and 34.

Extreme examples of the tendency for perpetrators not to want to be associated with their victim/s any more have been seen in two different honor killing cases committed in the United Kingdom. However, in these cases, rather than verbally denying the existence of the association with “the immoral victim,” the perpetrators, Mohammad Riaz and Rahan Arshad, have preferred physically to destroy all close ties and association that they had with the person who was “dishonorable and immoral.” Thus, they killed their wives and all children (BBC, 2007).

However, it comes as no surprise to the author to find that denying the existence of the victim is also used by the perpetrators as a sort of neutralization technique to cope with the possible condemnation and justify their conduct, something that will be discussed further below.

Techniques of Neutralization

As reflected above, to neutralize and justify his conduct, there is an obvious incentive on the perpetrator to deny the existence of the victim by transforming her into a person deserving of injury (Sykes & Matza, 1957). In addition, by denying association and kinship with the victim, as if she is an alien and not part of his own flesh and blood, the perpetrator also manages the pain caused by killing a victim who is his own flesh and blood.

In the author’s sample cases, a common way of neutralizing the killing, apart from denying the existence of the victim, was an appeal to higher loyalties that refers to the perpetrator’s cultural norms. For the perpetrator, a person’s honor is believed to be a sacred value (Bourdieu, 1966, 1977; Peristiany & Pitt-Rivers, 1992; Van Eck, 2003), and it is unthinkable to deal with the issue of dishonor in a way other than that suggested or designed by the society, which requires killing. That is why many participants in their interviews with the author made oblique reference to such social determinants by using expressions such as “I had no choice,” “it was not in my hands,” “there was no other remedy,” and “this problem could only be solved like that.” By using these words in their interviews, on one hand they tried to reflect the pressure that they had experienced, and on the other hand they neutralized the killing that they have committed by appealing to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957) that were their cultural norms.

Another technique of neutralizing the killing in the author’s sample of cases appeared to involve “a condemnation of the condemners,” or “a rejection of the rejectors” (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668) where the perpetrator shifts the focus of attention from his own deviant acts to the motives and behavior of those who disapprove of his violations. Rejectors may be described as lacking in honor or manliness, or dismissed as “pimp” (Interviewees 11 and 23), or “cuckold and tramp” (Interviewees 13 and 19). The neutralization techniques described here, which must be set against the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim that led to the killing, are culturally shaped, and therefore different from the neutralization techniques described in recent criminological literature on violent men. This important issue is discussed further next.

First of all, in the research studies men’s violence to women is mainly conceptualized as an instrumental strategy of control, or as a means of reinforcing masculine identity (Anderson, 2008; Gadd, 2000; Hearn, 1998; Messerschmidt, 1999). Therefore, when the issue of neutralization is discussed in homicide cases committed in the context of sexual intimacy involving women as victims and men as offender, either because of masculine identity or with the aim of controlling women’s behavior, it is reported that the single most important motive for murder is the inability of the male offender to accept the termination of a relationship. So, a man claiming exclusive rights over his intimate partner was the defining characteristic of these cases (Alder & Polk, 1996; Block & Christakos, 1995; Browne & Williams, 1993; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Hearn, 1998; Polk, 1994).

In such studies, however, the nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim that led up to killing were not shaped by the specific logic of honor culture, which is sacred and which equates the concept of life with the concept of honor. Second, in such studies there was no reference in the narratives to suggest that the perpetrator himself felt shame due to the conduct of his partner. When these perpetrators in their stories expressed a degree of shame or embarrassment, they said they felt ashamed of doing violence to women (DeShong, 2010; Gadd, 2003; Hearn, 1998, p. 138; 2012, p. 602; Jefferson, 2002, p. 71). This is quite different from perpetrators of honor killings, where the perpetrator felt ashamed by the conduct of the female relative.

In the context of honor killing, the neutralization techniques described above are culturally shaped and, therefore, different from the neutralization techniques described in recent criminological literature on violent men. In their interviews with the author, the perpetrators did not reject legal and religious norms that establish that killing is wrong. Indeed, they accepted that killing was wrong, and a sin, but they asserted strongly that the killing was the only option in their circumstances. All of these suggest strongly that the cases of perpetrators who are violent toward their female partners are generally prompted by different motives and dynamics. Though men indeed may choose violence against women as a means of reinforcing their masculine identity (Messerschmidt, 1999), or to control female behavior (Hearn, 1998), these explanations provide only “a very partial fit to the perpetrators of honor killings” (Doğan, 2014a) and the whole dynamic behind honor killings. ¹²

Pressure and People’s Attitude Toward the Perpetrator

In honor killing cases, there might be an explicit or implicit pressure on the perpetrator from the community, or extended family members, to restore family honor (Hoyek et al., 2005, p. 131; Husseini, 2009, pp. 10-16; Kevorkian, 2003, p. 595; Onal, 2008; Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001, p. 985; Van Eck, 2003, p. 185; Yirmibesoglu, 2007, pp. 57, 124). Indeed, as happened in the case of Alican Yılmaz, ¹³ the degree of pressure and threat might amount to a form of duress in which the perpetrator has to make a choice- either he kills the female relative to restore honor, or he is killed.

The author’s research shows that in 15 cases out of a total of 34, participants mentioned that they had experienced explicit or implicit pressure from the community or extended family members to restore the family honor. In the remaining cases, 8 perpetrators did not experience any pressure. In 4 cases, there was a quarrel between the victim and the perpetrator before the killing, which was described as “push comes to shove,” and in 6 cases there was a particular triggering event, such as seeing a text message (Interviewee 11), seeing the victim kissing her boyfriend in front of a stable (Interviewee 22), overhearing a phone call from a boyfriend (Interviewee 1), witnessing his child being maltreated and abused (Interviewee 15), hearing from the mother a confession of involvement in prostitution (Interviewee 23), or witnessing that the mother had sexual intercourse with a man and later hearing compliments and kind words from the mother about the same man and expressing a desire to return to the village where the man lives (Interviewee 3). Finally, in the case of Interviewee 28, who killed his mother and half-brother because they had an affair, he committed murder because he believed that killing was the only way to solve his problem.

Without in any way seeking to justify what they did, the author will now summarize what the participants told him of their experience before the offense, and will reflect on some of their narratives in accordance with their own words.

After my sister eloped, my father could not go out. He even could not go to his own brother’s house. If you are involved in something dishonorable, in my community people stare at you in anger. Once, I even heard that without mentioning my name, but by implying me, they said “There are so many dishonorable people who live in this world. Could you imagine? Their girl runs away to a man, involves in a dishonorable conduct and when she comes back, they do not do anything for this bitch.” (Interviewee 17, age 20)

After hearing rumors about my wife’s infidelity, even my best friends did not want to be seen together with me. My friends that I used to play card games with used to leave the coffee shop when I entered. Except for my father and mother, people used to describe my wife as dirt and dirty. (Interviewee 2, age 46)

When my two paternal aunts started to live together after leaving their husbands, my paternal uncles living in our hometown started to send us messages and question the situation. They started to ask “what are you doing there? What are you waiting for, if you cannot finish this, we will come and do it?” After hearing this, my youngest uncle said “let’s clean this up and solve the problem. Then, we can walk with our heads held high among people.” (Interviewee 32, age 29)

In the opinion of the author, Interviewees 34 and 7 seem to be those who felt pressure the most. In the case of Interviewee 34, the perpetrator’s sisters ran away to two men and got married, but the perpetrator found one of his sisters and later killed her. In the interview he said,

Ten months passed between my sisters’ elopements and the killing. During this period, many things happened to me and my family . . . People began to stop greeting me. Then, I started to go out secretly. I used to check the corner of every street whether there was anybody that I knew. What I felt most was shame. I still feel shame . . . On one occasion, I remember there was a fight between me and one of my cousins in a construction site where we worked. After the fight I was told that he said “he cannot dare to use his strength against his sisters, but he is using it against me.” If he had said such words at my face during our fight, I would have killed him there. People here do not pay attention to what they say, especially during a fight. If they feel that they can question your honor, or your honor is in question, they try to take advantage of this point to find support among people. They say “Look! He did not do anything to his sisters and he thinks that he is a man! No way. Go save your honor first.” (Interviewee 34, age 35)

Similarly Interviewee 7 reflected on what he felt and experienced as follows:

There were rumors about my mother. Everybody was telling me different things about my mother . . . Especially my cousins and half-brothers were doing that. I talked with them and said “what do you want me to do? Do you want me to kill her or kill myself?” This time they said “no, just ask your father to divorce her.” But, then they said “those days were in the past. You cannot find any more such brave men who kill their relatives if they behave like that.” . . . One day I came back again from Istanbul to my village. My cousins were going to take me from the main road and give a lift into the village. They used to do that. The road from main road to the village takes two to three hours on foot. I got off the bus. But, nobody was waiting for me there. It was summer and I had a huge amount of luggage. My three cousins passed on the main road in their cars; but, they acted as if they did not see me. Other people from our village did not give me a lift either. Just because of my mother, they did not give me a lift. I walked the whole road on foot. On that road, I thought that I was the most dishonorable person around and I decided. I was going to do something . . . (Interviewee 7, age 23)

As reflected by a father in Kevorkian’s (2003) study, it is very difficult to resist this kind of pressure, and it is not as easy as many people think to say “it is none of your business” (p. 595). Reacting against such pressure depends on the perpetrator’s social status and the status of people who are questioning his honor. Moreover, in such an environment it is almost impossible for anybody to act as an intermediary and to intervene to prevent the commission of the offense. People in the community do not want to intervene or to break silence. They keep their nose out of the problem, as it is a family’s business. The paradox here is that it is the same community that is, on one hand, so willing to spread rumors about the next door’s daughter but, on the other hand, so reluctant to intervene in what will eventually happen to the next door’s daughter. The reason behind this paradox to some extent is explained by Interviewees 22 and 23. Interviewee 23 said,

Nobody wants to say anything about your honor to your face. Even if he dares to talk, it is obvious and inevitable how it will end up. So, nobody wants to be a cause of it. Everybody prefers that you learn about dishonor on your own, and they watch their mouth. (Interviewee 23, age 28)

The author’s research shows that in only 13 cases the defendant mentioned that they dared to speak with somebody, or somebody dared to speak with them to ask them to stay away from the idea of killing, and to act wisely. In the remaining cases the defendants did not talk with anybody else, or nobody dared to talk with them about acting wisely.

However, it appears from the account of interviewees that after the murder the community and extended family members are more willing to break silence, and they do not tend to hide their attitude toward the murder and the perpetrator. Thus, in 16 cases the participants mentioned that they experienced an affirmative attitude from the community or extended family members, and their behavior either in the form of words or actions, was supported by them after the offense.

For instance, Interviewee 28, who killed his mother and half-brother because they had an affair said,

After the offense, many people started to visit me and send me money. Families who used to say to their children, “keep away from him, he is a trouble maker” started to suggest their children should follow my example. Why? Because, I cleansed my family honor. When they visited me, almost all my relatives and friends said “well done you did the right thing, you cleansed your honor.” Now, my father sends money, his friends send money, all my needs are immediately met. Here the inmates see me differently, and regard me as a real murderer, though they have committed more crime and murder than me. (Interviewee 28, age 30)

The author has discussed what the perpetrators felt and experienced before the offense and people’s attitude toward them in their community before and after the offense. We now examine what the perpetrators think about whether there were any remedies other than killing, and whether the killing could possibly have been prevented.

Other Remedies

Was there an alternative to the killing? Alternative remedies vary, depending on the nature of the dishonor and what might be done to transform the situation from shameful and dishonorable to tolerable and acceptable. All possible remedies suggested by the perpetrators were either aimed to conceal what had happened, or to prevent other people from hearing what had happened, or giving the impression that the rumors were untrue.

Other writers have found a willingness to consider alternatives, such as having an abortion or giving the baby to an orphanage (Husseini, 2009, p. 1; Onal, 2008, pp. 153-54;Yirmibesoglu, 2007, p. 106), moving away from the area (Husseini, 2009, p. 189; Onal, 2008, pp. 73, 145; Van Eck, 2003, pp. 173, 239), or arranging a marriage with the rapist (Husseini, 2009, p. 47; Onal, 2008, p. 190; Van Eck, 2003, p. 158), arranging a marriage for a non-virgin with a much older man (Onal, 2008, p. 119; Van Eck, 2003, p. 158), or a man willing to take her as a second wife (Van Eck, 2003, p. 158), or asking for compensation or for a girl in exchange for the girl whose honor was sullied (Van Eck, 2003, pp. 171-72; Yirmibesoglu, 2007, p. 126), or encouraging the girl to commit suicide (Kevorkian, 2003, p. 596) have all been identified as alternatives to committing murder but otherwise concealing the social shame.

The fieldwork found several cases where the perpetrator killed his wife and the perpetrators said that everything would have been different if they had made more effort to divorce. Divorce, or separation, was the only other remedy in their case that could have possibly prevented the killing. In cases of pregnancy out of wedlock that was the result of a rape, the participants mentioned that an abortion, or arranging a marriage with the rapist, could have been a remedy. But, in their case either it was too late for an abortion, or the rapist was married.

In those cases where the perpetrators killed a female relative other than their wife, moving to another place was mentioned as a remedy that could possibly have prevented the killing. There were also some husbands who killed their wives who mentioned that moving to another place could possibly have prevented the killing (Interviewees 9, 18, and 21). In this context, Interviewee 9 said,

If you are living in a rural area or village, you have limited options. If you do not have kids from your marriage and if you can leave the village, you can save yourself and prevent it. Otherwise, if you continue to stay there, you cannot resist. (Interviewee 9, age 38)

In cases where the victim was single, arranging a marriage for their non-virgin relatives was mentioned as a remedy that could have prevented killing (Interviewees 12, 17, and 22). In two cases, Interviewees 4 and 25 said that changing behavior in a way that could enable the perpetrator to walk with his head held high among people could have changed everything. In only one case, where the perpetrator’s sisters ran away to two men and got married, the perpetrator said that there were a few culturally accepted rituals and responses in his case that could have solved the problem. He said,

The family of the grooms should have paid compensation for the damage that they caused, by giving a pistol and money, and then organized a proper wedding, or they should have given two girls for the exchange of my sisters. These could have solved everything. (Interviewee 34, age 35)

It can be seen from the accounts of the perpetrators that different remedies might have been found for different situations.

In all other cases in the sample, perpetrators mentioned that the situation that they met did not leave them any choice apart from killing, or that choices were very limited. It seems that perpetrators who hold the belief that there was no other choice, or that choices were very limited, also share the view that honor is the most fundamental value in life. The system of values to differentiate what is honorable from what is not is a deep and long-held understanding of these perpetrators. Their perception of honor greatly affected their decision on how to act and what their options were, and therefore made them act immediately against the dishonorable conduct. For this group of perpetrators, the concept of honor has a fragile quality that may easily be lost. The fragile quality that honor possesses is so great that a person can feel himself to be dishonored even if the dishonorable act is not generally known. The reason behind feeling dishonored rests on the suspicion or fear that the community, sooner or later, is going to learn that he has been dishonored and he will be forced to recognize that he has been dishonored. So, if there is a way to escape from the publicity of dishonorable conduct, there may still be an alternative to restore honor without seeking violence. However, the concept of shame, which is closely associated with the concept of honor, and that makes a person “sensitive to the judgments of others” (Campbell, 1992, p. 131), does not always permit a person to restore honor without seeking violence, even if the dishonorable act is not generally known, or is based on a mere suspicion.

So, it is the combination of this perception of honor and shame that provides an environment conducive for the perpetrators to perceive that the killing was almost inevitable and was the only solution to their problem. To some extent, this explains why some men felt so compelled to kill to save their honor, while others considered alternatives to restore honor without resorting to violence. In other words, as they differently define the concept of honor and perceive the appropriate way to behave in case of dishonorable conduct, their responses differ on the basis of the meanings that the concept of honor and shame have for them.

In this context, this group of perpetrators who hold the belief that there was no other choice apart from killing, voiced their opinion about the concept of honor and its importance for them as follows:

For me, honor is above all things. That is what I have been taught since my childhood. My family used to say “if you are not involved in any conduct that makes others point a finger at your honor that is enough to have a decent life” So, I was brought up like that. (Interviewee 19, age 40)

Honor is not something light and easy. It is like a heavy burden. It is too heavy to carry. But, it has to be carried. (Interviewee 12, age 43)

As seen, due to their intensely held beliefs, the underlying assumption of this group of perpetrators seems to be that the killing was almost inevitable and was the only solution to their problem. For instance, when the author persistently asked why he did not try harder to divorce, or at least to be a little more patient, Interviewee 1 who killed his wife because of infidelity, explicitly rejected the author’s suggestion, and condemned him, saying that he did not understand the concept of honor.

As will be explained later, when making oblique reference to conduct norms, the participants also seek to excuse their actions by shifting the focus of attention from rational choices to choices perceived to be appropriate by the perpetrator who is concerned with upholding his reputation as a norm follower.

Behavior Patterns Shown During and After the Murder

Regret

As to whether the perpetrators had regrets about what they did, the author asked all participants three questions to investigate this issue. In the first part of the interview, each interviewee was asked whether the interviewee confessed at the trial that he regretted what he did. Second, the interviewee was asked whether he now regrets committing the offense, and finally they were asked whether they would consider killing again after their release if they met the same or a similar situation. In this context, the research yielded interesting results.

First of all, only in 2 cases did the perpetrator (Interviewees 28 and 30) say “I do not regret committing the offense” at the trial. Seventy percent of perpetrators (24 cases) confessed at their trial that they regretted what they did. In the remaining 8 cases, this issue was not raised at trial, or the perpetrator was not asked whether he had regret, or the perpetrator did not remember what he said at the trial and neither their file in the prison nor the court ruling had any reference to this issue. Later, however, perpetrators may show a different response pattern from what they said or felt at their trial. When they were asked whether they would consider killing again after their release if they met the same situation, this time only 15 perpetrators (44%) said that they “would not consider killing again.” Likewise, 13 perpetrators (38%) said that they “would consider killing again after their release if they met the same situation.” Only 5 perpetrators (Interviewees 7, 11, 21, 33, and 34) said that they “cannot say anything for sure about what they would do if they met the same situation again.” Finally, Interviewee 26, who killed the man who made his sister pregnant and then later killed his pregnant sister, said that if after his release he met the same situation, he would only retaliate against the man and would not retaliate against his sister.

It can be seen from these accounts that there is an obvious incentive on the perpetrator to claim remorse at the trial to get a shorter sentence. Thus, eight perpetrators, who confessed at their trial that they regretted what they did later somehow shifted their opinion and told the author that they would consider killing again if they met the same or a similar situation. When conducting the interviews and analyzing interviews, the author realized that when the perpetrators answered the question of whether they had any regrets about committing the offense they took into account many different factors, such as their situation in prison, the situation and condition of their children and what happened to the children during the prison term, being regarded as a murderer of their mother in the eyes of their children, and a sinner in the eyes of God, and so on. However, when they answered the question of whether they would consider killing again, they only took into account the question whether what they did was right or wrong. That is why their responses differ on whether they have any regrets about committing the offense as compared with whether they would consider killing again if they met the same or a similar situation.

From their accounts, it seems that perpetrators who hold the belief that they tried everything that they could before killing, or they had no choice, now tend to believe that what they did was acceptable. Though they have regret about committing the offense for various reasons, whether they would do it or not if they met the same or similar situation again is a separate issue. For instance Interviewee 22, who killed his sister and attempted to murder his sister’s boyfriend (who was actually his brother-in-law), said,

After the killing, there were times during which I cried. But for me, even if I go to the USA and have a master’s degree, my view does not change. You cannot live without honor. So, if I met the same situation again, I would kill again. (Interviewee 22, age 31)

Similarly, Interviewee 23 who, along with his brother, killed his mother and sister after hearing them admit that they were involved in prostitution said,

After my release, if I met the same situation that I met before, I would kill again. After release on parole, I will be placed on a fifteen-year probation period. So, even if I met the same situation during my probation period, I would kill again . . . Of course I said to myself “I wish it had not happened to me” and cried for days. Because, nevertheless, one of the people that we killed is our mother and the other one is our sister. You should lose your being for not being sorry or not feeling sorrow for them. (Interviewee 23, age 28)

Interviewee 28, who killed his mother and half-brother because they had an affair, said,

I want to be out and spend time out, instead of being in the prison. But if I met the same situation again I would kill again, because this is a shame of blood that always follows you. (Interviewee 28, age 30)

Finally, Interviewee 7 who killed his mother, said,

For me after killing the word “regret” does not have any meaning at all. Because it happened, being regretful does not bring her back or change anything. If I did not do it, somebody from my family would definitely do it. Killing is the last resort. If I met the same situation again I would do my best not to kill if I believe that she will change her behavior and repents. (Interviewee 7, age 23)

Before concluding the analysis about the issue of regret, there is one point that needs to be clarified in terms of whether the time spent in the prison changes the perpetrators’ views about how to act if they met the same or similar situation after their release. This point is crucial to analyze the relationship between time served in prison and future offending in the context of honor killing. Contrary to studies that find that long duration is associated with less reoffending measured either by recidivism probability (DeJong, 1997; Deschenes, Owen, & Crow, 2007; Petersilia & Turner, 1986), reoffending rate (Deschenes et al., 2007), or time to reoffense (Deschenes et al., 2007), as far as the current research is concerned, no evidence was found that longer periods of incarceration decreases the number of offenders or honor killings. This is because the time spent in the prison does not always change the perpetrators’ views about how to act if they meet the same or similar situation after their release. This supports Renteln’s (2004) suggestion that no matter how severe or light, punishment may well not serve as a deterrent to culturally motivated crime. Thus two prisoners (Interviewees 28 and 30) who said, “I do not regret committing the offense” at trial still hold the same belief and told the author that if they met the same or similar situation after their release, they would consider killing again. Even in cases where the prisoners were going to be released on parole soon, some prisoners would retain an unaltered view. Thus, in three cases (Interviewees, 12, 18, and 34) where the prisoners were about to be released on parole in 3 months’ time or less after the interview, only one (Interviewee 18) said that he would not consider killing again after his release. Interviewee 12 said, “I would consider killing again” and Interviewee 34 said, “I cannot say anything for sure what I would do.” In two cases (Interviewees 9 and 22) where the prisoners were going to be released on parole between 6 and 12 months after the interview, one prisoner (Interviewee 22) said, “I would consider killing again,” and one prisoner (Interviewee 9) said, “I would not consider killing again.”

As we have seen, though the perpetrators know that killing is not right and, for some, it is a sin, they believe that what they did was acceptable in their case by asserting that “there was no choice,” “it was not in their hands,” “they did their best,” or “they could not take it any more.” Their underlying assumption seems to be that killing was almost inevitable and was the only solution for their problem and that anybody who met the same or similar circumstances would do what they did.