Kin punishment

Last updated

Kin punishment is the practice of punishing the family members of someone who is accused or suspected of committing a crime, either in place of or in addition to the perpetrator of the crime. It refers to the principle in which a family shares responsibility for a crime which is committed by one of its members, and it is a form of collective punishment. Kin punishment has been used as a form of extortion, harassment, and persecution by authoritarian and totalitarian states. Kin punishment has been practiced historically in China, Japan, South Korea, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany; and presently in Israel and North Korea.

Contents

Traditional examples

Ancient times

The Code of Hammurabi contained several provisions for kin punishment: [1]

Europe

Traditional Irish law required the payment of a tribute ( Éraic ) in reparation for murder or other major crimes. In the case of homicide, if the attacker fled, the fine had to be paid by the tribe to which he belonged. [2]

In medieval Welsh law, the kin of an offender was liable to make compensation for his wrongful act. This penalty (called Galanas ) was generally limited to murder. [3]

The medieval Polish Główszczyzna fine functioned similarly to the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian weregild.

Arabic states

Traditional Arab society, which is clan-based, strongly adheres to the concept of collective responsibility. Bedouins recognize two main forms of penalty for a crime against a member. These are blood revenge, referred to as Qisas (قصا, "revenge") and blood money, Diyya (دية, "blood money"/"ransom"). In cases of severe crimes such as murder and rape, blood revenge is the prescribed punishment. If a murder occurs, clansmen of the victim have the right to kill the murderer or one of his male clansmen with impunity. Certain crimes justify multiple acts of revenge, for example, the murder of women and children is avenged fourfold. Crimes considered treacherous, such as the murder of a guest, are also avenged fourfold.[ citation needed ]

Alternatively, a crime punishable by blood revenge can be commuted to a severe fine if the family of the offended party agrees to it. Blood money is paid jointly by the clan of the offending member to the clan of the victimized member. Bedouins differentiate between crimes in which the group must pay as a standing obligation without reimbursement from the perpetrator of the offense, and crimes where the latter must reimburse them. Crimes where the clan is obligated to pay a joint fee without any reimbursement are murder, violent assault, or insults and other offenses committed during a violent conflict. The collective payment of fines for such crimes is viewed as a justified contribution to the welfare of the injured party rather than a penalty to the perpetrator. Other offenses given a blood-price are crimes against property and crimes against honor. [4] Concepts based on the Arabian laws of blood revenge and blood money are found in Islamic Sharia law, and are thus variously adhered to in Islamic states.[ citation needed ]

After the Saudi Arabian trial and verdict of the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, which the United Nations rapporteur on summary executions, Agnès Callamard, called "extrajudicial execution for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible,” [5] Khashoggi's sons pardoned the five convicted officials on 22 May 2020, which means the officials would not be executed but their blood money will be paid to Khashoggi's family. [6]

China

China historically adhered to the concept of liability among blood relatives. During the Qin and Han dynasties, families were subject to various punishments according to the punishment of the offending member. When the offense was punishable by death by severing the body at the waist, the offender's parents, siblings, spouse, and children were executed. When the offense was punishable by death and public display of the body, the offender's family was subject to imprisonment with hard labor. When the offender's sentence was exile, their kin was exiled along with them. [7] The most severe punishment, given for capital offenses, was the nine familial exterminations (zú zhū (族誅), literally "family execution", and miè zú (灭族/滅族)), implemented by tyrannical rulers. This punishment entailed the execution of all the close and extended kin of the individual, categorized into nine groups: four generations of the paternal line, three from the maternal line, and two from the wife's. In the case of Confucian scholar Fang Xiaoru, his students and peers were uniquely included as a tenth group.[ citation needed ]

During the Ming dynasty of China (1368–1644), 16 palace women attempted to assassinate the Jiajing Emperor. All were sentenced to death by slow slicing. Ten members of the women's families were also beheaded, while a further 20 were enslaved and gifted to ministers. Collective punishment was officially repealed by the government of the Qing dynasty (1644–1912) in 1905. [8]

Modern examples

Nazi Germany

In traditional Germanic law, the law of Germanic peoples (before the widespread adoption of Roman canon law) accepted that the clan of a criminal was liable for offenses committed by one of its members. In Nazi Germany, this concept was revived so that the relatives of persons accused of crimes against the state, including desertion, were held responsible for those crimes. [9] [10]

North Korea

Numerous testimonies of North Korean defectors confirm the practice of kin punishment (연좌제, yeonjwaje literally "association system") in North Korea, under which three to eight generations of a political offender's family can be summarily imprisoned or executed. [11] Such punishment is based on internal Workers' Party protocols and lies outside the formal legal system. [12] Relatives are not told why they fell under suspicion and the punishment extends to children born in prison. [13] The association system was introduced with the North Korean state's founding in 1948, having previously existed under the Joseon kingdom. [13] [11]

Israel

Since the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. During this period, Israel has frequently been accused of imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians. Allegations include but are not limited to: the land and sea blockades of Gaza, bombing an individual house when they go home and their entire family is there and killed, [14] the destruction of homes belonging to the families of Palestinians who have attacked Israeli military personnel or civilians, and withholding the bodies of militants. [15]

International law grants an occupying power the authority to maintain public order but requires that this authority be balanced against the rights of the civilian population. Israel disputes the accusations of collective punishment, arguing that the measures in question are justified by their security needs, terrorism prevention, or are based on laws that were in effect in the Occupied Palestinian Territories before the occupation began. However, from an international law perspective, these arguments do not negate the possibility that these actions could constitute collective punishment. [15]

Both international and domestic Israeli law prohibit collective punishment. However, the Israeli High Court of Justice applies a domestic test of proportionality and often avoids addressing the customary international prohibition on collective punishment as outlined in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel maintains that its actions do not constitute collective punishment but rather are legal security measures taken in self-defense. [16]

The benchmark for determining collective punishment in international law is the penalization of individuals for actions in which they bear no individual responsibility. While Israel contends that its measures are solely security-driven, the international community has expressed concerns over whether this justification truly holds. [17]

Regardless of Israel's legal position, all forms of collective punishment are prohibited under international humanitarian law and if carried out, infringe upon a range of human rights, including the right to equal protection under the law and the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, practices such as residency revocation may violate the prohibition on forcible transfers under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. [16]

Deportations of family members

In November 2024, Israel’s parliament passed a law allowing the deportation of family members of Palestinians involved in attacks, including those who are Israeli citizens, to the Gaza Strip or other locations. The law targets Palestinian citizens of Israel and residents of annexed East Jerusalem who either knew about the attacks in advance or expressed support for them. Those affected face deportation for a period ranging from 7 to 20 years. [18]

Eran Shamir-Borer, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute and former international law expert for the Israeli military, argued that the law could be viewed as both discriminatory and a form of collective punishment, as it seemingly applies only to Arab citizens and residents, rather than to the families of Jewish individuals convicted under anti-terrorism laws. [18]

The policy of deportation is not without precedent. In July 2002, Israel forcibly expelled two Palestinians from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip, marking the first instance in which Israel deported relatives of militants from their home areas. The two individuals, Intisar and Kifah Ajouri, were siblings of Ali Ajouri, whom Israel accused of sending two suicide bombers to Tel Aviv earlier that month. Acting under a Supreme Court ruling that permitted the expulsion of relatives of attackers if they were deemed to pose a security threat, Israeli forces blindfolded the siblings, transported them in armored vehicles, and left them in a deserted agricultural area in Gaza. The expulsions were condemned by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a "crime against humanity" that violated human rights and international law. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's spokesperson also criticized the action, emphasizing that such transfers are prohibited under international humanitarian law and could have serious political and security consequences. Israel's military, however, maintained that the threat of sanctions against the families of suspected militants serves as a powerful deterrent. [19]

Punitive house demolitions

The policy of punitive house demolitions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been widely criticized and thoroughly explored in academic literature. This policy allows military commanders to destroy the homes of relatives of Palestinians who have harmed or attempted to harm Israeli security personnel or civilians. Palestinian homeowners do not have the right to a hearing or an opportunity to appeal before their homes are destroyed. [17] House demolitions have been ongoing since 1967 and have been denounced as a form of collective punishment by prominent Israeli scholars, international organizations such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and even by some Israeli Supreme Court judges in dissenting opinions. In response to this criticism and concerns about its effectiveness, the Israeli military imposed a moratorium on the practice in 2005, though it was reintroduced in 2014. The policy has even been applied in cases where the alleged perpetrator was already deceased. [15]

Leading figures such as Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have described the policy as "unjust and inhuman," while the United Nations considers it incompatible with Israel’s obligations under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits all forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Israeli Supreme Court Justice Karra has also noted that the policy "inflicts severe harm on innocent people." [15]

In 1979, the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, issued its first ruling on the military commander’s authority to punitively demolish or seal homes. In this and subsequent rulings, the Court adopted three key principles: first, that Article 119 — which permits military commanders to demolish homes as a punitive measure — did not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, as "local law" took precedence over the laws of occupation; second, that punitive home demolition did not constitute collective punishment; and third, that the military’s rationale for the demolitions — as a "punitive measure" intended to deter similar acts — was valid. [20]

A 2020 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories stated that Israel had demolished or sealed approximately 2,000 Palestinian homes since the occupation began. These demolitions have targeted not only the homes of alleged perpetrators but also those of their immediate family members or relatives, even when the families had no proven involvement in the offense. In many cases, the homes were not even linked to the commission of the purported act. [20]

The practice of punitive demolitions has never been applied to Israeli settlers or their families, even when they have committed indiscriminate acts of violence against Palestinians, despite criminal convictions in a court of law for some of these acts. [20]

Withholding of human remains

Israel has been accused of engaging in kin punishment by withholding the bodies of deceased Palestinian militants in circumstances where the practice is intended to pressure, intimidate, or punish their relatives. According to legal scholars and international bodies, such measures may constitute collective punishment under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention when they deliberately affect family members who have committed no crime or pose no security threat. International humanitarian law requires parties to an armed conflict to facilitate the return of human remains to the next of kin and to ensure burial in a dignified manner consistent with religious rites. Human rights bodies have further held that withholding remains can interfere with the rights of relatives to family life and freedom of religion, particularly where families are prevented from conducting burial ceremonies or grieving according to their beliefs. [15]

Revocation of work permits

In 2018, B'Tselem reported that Israel revoked work permits from hundreds of Palestinians not accused of any wrongdoing, solely due to their familial or surname association with individuals who had carried out attacks. Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai described the policy as targeting the "kin of the terrorists", and in several cases permits were withdrawn from extended family members or from people sharing the same family name, without any claim of personal involvement or knowledge of the attacks. According to B'Tselem, the measure was intended to deter future attacks by imposing economic hardship on relatives, making family affiliation itself the basis for the sanction. [21]

Denial of visits to jailed relatives

In 2009, Israel’s Supreme Court affirmed a government ruling that prohibits Gaza Strip residents from visiting family members in Israeli prisons, stating that such visits do not constitute a "basic humanitarian need." Human rights organizations condemned the ruling, arguing that it infringed not only on the rights of Gazans but also on those of the prisoners themselves. [22]

Venezuela

The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela concluded in a September 2021 report that Venezuelan security and intelligence agents reportedly applied the principle of Sippenhaftung , using methods including and kidnapping and detention of relatives of critics, real or perceived, to accomplish arrests. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

See also

References

  1. ↑ The Code of Hammurabi
  2. ↑ Wake, Charles Staniland (1 January 1878). The Evolution of Morality. Trübner & Company. p.  363 – via Internet Archive.
  3. ↑ "Welsh tribal law" (PDF).
  4. ↑ Bailey, Clinton (14 May 2014). Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice Without Government. Yale University Press. ISBN   978-0300153255 – via Google Books.
  5. ↑ "Turkey, rights groups decry Saudi verdict on Khashoggi murder". Al Jazeera. 23 December 2019. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
  6. ↑ Tawfeeq, Mohammed; Karadsheh, Jomana; Qiblawi, Tamara; Robertson, Nic (22 May 2020). "Khashoggi's children 'pardon' their father's killers, sparing them the death penalty". CNN. Archived from the original on 22 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  7. ↑ Historians, National Committee of Japanese (1 January 1990). Historical Studies in Japan (VII): 1983-1987. BRILL. ISBN   9004092927 – via Google Books.
  8. ↑ History Office, ed. (1620s). 明實錄：明世宗實錄 [Veritable Records of the Ming: Veritable Records of Shizong of Ming] (in Chinese). Vol. 267. Ctext. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved August 30, 2017.
  9. ↑ Loeffel, Robert (2012). Family Punishment in Nazi Germany, Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth. Palgrave. pp. 53–88. ISBN   9780230343054.
  10. ↑ Fest, Joachim (1996). Plotting Hitler's Death. New York: Henry Holt. p.  303. ISBN   0080504213.
  11. 1 2 Hawk, David (2012). The Hidden Gulag (PDF) (Report) (2nd ed.). Human Rights in North Korea. Retrieved 2022-07-03.
  12. ↑ Kim, Joonho (March 24, 2015). "North Korean officials, businessmen bankroll poor flight-risk relatives". Radio Free Asia. Retrieved 2022-07-03.
  13. 1 2 Harden, Blaine (December 11, 2008). "Escapee Tells of Horrors in North Korean Prison Camp". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 23, 2010.
  14. ↑ Kelly, Annie; Osman, Hoda (4 July 2025). "'No other explanation': Children of Gaza doctor killed in airstrike believe he was deliberately targeted". The Guardian.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Serralvo, Jose (July 2022). "Concomitant Prohibitions: Collective Punishment as the Origin of Other Violations of the Rights of Civilians under Belligerent Occupation". Israel Law Review. 55 (2): 178–212. doi: 10.1017/S0021223722000024 . ISSN   0021-2237.
  16. 1 2 "Concern about collective punishment: new measures targeting the residency rights of East Jerusalem Palestinians". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory. 13 April 2017.
  17. 1 2 Corbett, Ryan (2017). "Israel's Breach of International Law in the West Bank" (PDF). Boston University International Law Journal. 35: 369 - 396.
  18. 1 2 Pioneer, The (9 November 2024). "New law allows Israel to deport kin of attackers". The Pioneer.
  19. ↑ Collins, Dan (5 September 2002). "Israel Expels Terror Kin - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com.
  20. 1 2 3 "Situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, with a focus on collective punishment" (PDF). United Nations.
  21. ↑ "Just because of their name: Israel punishing hundreds of Palestinians by preventing them from working in Israel". B'Tselem.
  22. ↑ Singh, Rishi (16 December 2009). "Gazans barred from visiting jailed kin". The Himalayan Times.
  23. ↑ Casanova, Mayreth (2022-10-02). "Sippenhaft, el patrón alemán con el que torturan a presos políticos en Venezuela". El Pitazo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-11-07. Un acusado de participar en la Operación Gedeón dijo al Tribunal de Control en su audiencia preliminar que agentes de la Dgcim lo torturaron y le dijeron que aplicarían el 'Sippenhaft', una táctica de castigo colectivo utilizada por los nazis.
  24. ↑ "Qué es el Sippenhaft, el método de persecución nazi usado por la dictadura chavista que denunció la ONU". infobae (in Spanish). 16 September 2021. Retrieved 2021-09-17. En el caso de un acusado de participar en la Operación Gedeón (una incursión marítima en mayo de 2020), relató que en su audiencia preliminar, agentes de la Dirección General de Contrainteligencia Militar (DGCIM) "lo torturaron y le dijeron que aplicarían el Sippenhaft (una táctica de castigo colectivo utilizada por los nazis)".
  25. ↑ García, Eileen (2021-09-17). "¿Qué es el Sippenhaft, el método de persecución nazi usado por las fuerzas de Maduro?". El Nacional (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-11-07. Además, dijo al Tribunal de Control que, tras negarse a hacer las declaraciones que le plantearon, los funcionarios le dijeron que aplicarían el Sippenhaft.
  26. ↑ Itriago, Andreína (2021-09-16). "El Sippenhaft, la táctica nazi que según ONU usan agentes venezolanos". Bloomberg Línea (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-11-07. Un acusado de participar en la Operación Gedeón dijo al Tribunal de Control en su audiencia preliminar que agentes de la DGCIM lo torturaron y le dijeron que aplicarían el 'Sippenhaft'. Detuvieron posteriormente a sus hermanas y a su cuñado
  27. ↑ Detailed findings of the independent international factfinding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (PDF). United Nations. 16 September 2021. p. 109. He told the Control Court that after refusing to make declarations posed to him during the interrogation session, the DGCIM members told him they would apply 'Sippenhaft' (a collective punishment tactic used by the Nazis), involving the imprisonment of his relatives as a form of pressure.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.