Even been a legal code in history that punished criminals AND their families for the perps crimes?

[astro]

Has there even been a criminal code or legal practice that would not only punish the criminal, but also punish the family of the criminal for the perpetrators crimes?

[Krokodil]

North Korea punishes the families of people who defect to the South.

[robert_columbia]

I believe that North Korea is the only country that currently has this as a general practice, though I don't know exactly where it is codified in their law.

[pravnik]

Yes. At English common law, someone found guilty of treason lost not only their property but the right to pass property through inheritance by "corruption of blood." Corruption of blood by attainder of treason is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

[Tom Tildrum]

I believe that under English common law, the Crown would seize the property of a suicide, in effect punishing his surviving family.

ETA: Oops. Because it was common law, by definition that was not part of a legal code, as requested by the OP.

[MichaelEmouse]

Can we get biblical in answering the question?

[Kinthalis]

Didn't the code of Hammurabi say that if a house builder built a faulty structure and it killed the owners son, the builders son too would be killed?

[Procrustus]

I think Isreal punishes families of suicide bombers. Not criminally, IIRC

[Nawth Chucka]

In Michigan, the parents of some truant teens were shackled for days to them as their joint punishment about 15 years ago. Sort of a, "Bet you know where your kid is now" sort of thing.

[China Guy]

Confucian code in China held the entire clan accountable for an infraction by a single member. Not sure how "codified" it was though.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

In Michigan, the parents of some truant teens were shackled for days to them as their joint punishment about 15 years ago. Sort of a, "Bet you know where your kid is now" sort of thing.

France debated similar, but harsher, legislation a couple of years ago with criminal charges for the parents of repeat juvenile offenders. Nothing really came of it though as there are a whole bunch of problems with the idea.

[Dano83860]

No one expects the Spanish inquisition.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Dano83860

No one expects the Spanish inquisition.

No one inquired about Spanish expectations.

[AK84]

Pretty much the essence of collective punishment.

[Little Nemo]

Stalin issued NKVD Order Number 00486 in 1936, which ordered the arrest and imprisonment of family members of people who had already been sentenced for other crimes.

The Nazis enacted Sippenhaft (family punishment) laws in 1944. These laws said family members could be punished for treason committed by a relative. (Treason being defined as attempting to overthrow Hitler or the Nazis.)

[Mops]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

...

The Nazis enacted Sippenhaft (family punishment) laws in 1944. These laws said family members could be punished for treason committed by a relative. (Treason being defined as attempting to overthrow Hitler or the Nazis.)

True about the measure but AFAIK it was not legislated at the time - at that late stage the Nazis did not bother with legislation but instituted such measures by executive decree.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

I believe that under English common law, the Crown would seize the property of a suicide, in effect punishing his surviving family.

ETA: Oops. Because it was common law, by definition that was not part of a legal code, as requested by the OP.

The OP said "legal practice", doesn't common law count as legal practice?



While banishments would usually force only one person, their families had to choose. Under those legal systems where a woman was considered unable to enter contracts, make decisions for herself or her children, etc., a banishment for the husband meant choosing between going with him or having someone assigned by the court decide where you could live, go to parent-teacher meetings with you, etc. - so yeah, unless the marriage was already very heavily on the rocks or the wife was in an unusually strong position, the whole family would go.

[kayaker]

A woman I used to know was fined when her son repeatedly skipped school.

[Desert Nomad]

Israel punished the families of Palestinians accused of terrorism by destroying their homes.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Desert Nomad

Israel punished the families of Palestinians accused of terrorism by destroying their homes.

Thats war/occupied territory not domestic legal code. The US did something similar in Vietnam, Iraq and also is doing something similar in Afghanistan.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by AK84

Thats war/occupied territory not domestic legal code. The US did something similar in Vietnam, Iraq and also is doing something similar in Afghanistan.

Is Isreal officially at war with the Palestinians? If not, then it's a criminal punishment, regardless of whether it's carried out by the army, the police, or the girl scouts.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by kayaker

A woman I used to know was fined when her son repeatedly skipped school.

For failure to uphold her duty of making sure the boy went to school. Yes, he was the one skipping, but she was the one responsible for having him in school.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The Nazis enacted Sippenhaft (family punishment) laws in 1944. These laws said family members could be punished for treason committed by a relative. (Treason being defined as attempting to overthrow Hitler or the Nazis.)

Was it really necessary to Godwinize the thread?

Originally Posted by Diceman

Is Isreal officially at war with the Palestinians? If not, then it's a criminal punishment, regardless of whether it's carried out by the army, the police, or the girl scouts.

Nope. We're talking about codified law. Got a cite from the Israeli criminal code to back up your assertion?

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Desert Nomad

Israel punished the families of Palestinians accused of terrorism by destroying their homes.

Originally Posted by Diceman

Is Israel officially at war with the Palestinians? If not, then it's a criminal punishment, regardless of whether it's carried out by the army, the police, or the girl scouts.

IIRC, the process was that the home of a suicide bomber was bulldozed. In that culture, many people live with a larger extended family, so it was deliberately punishing the family (since most of the perp was not around to punish). It was an obvious attempt to dissuade sucide bombers, but for some reason flattening the house of a dozen innocent bystanders seemed to instead make the Palestinians even more anoyed at the invaders. Seems whether the bomber owned the house or not, whether in fact he had actually lived at his registered address recently, etc. was irrelevant data in the decision.

I don't recall the basis for this - whether it was court ordered, or (more likely) executive order from the military occupation authority. Also, legally, can a person be convicted of a crime if they are already dead? Since from what I recall reading the news, the "punishment" happened only a few days after the bombing, I doubt there was any significant legal proceedings, unless it was one of those fast and loose military tribunals.

Plus, since Israel is a democratic western country according to their website, I cannot imagine such a "law" actually being on the books.

[colonial]

The only cite I can provide the the following is the book Shogun, but I have found
that modern historical novelists strive for accuracy.

In pre-modern Japan entire families, including children of any age, could be liable
for the crimes of any member, an example being that of execution by burning of
arsonists' families.

Also, early in the book a man was summarily cut down by sword for disrespecting a
Samurai, and his family was fined an impossible amount, which it was understood
the entire village would have to contribute to to make good on.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Mops

True about the measure but AFAIK it was not legislated at the time - at that late stage the Nazis did not bother with legislation but instituted such measures by executive decree.

According to The Family Punishment in Nazi Germany: Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth by Robert Loeffe, it was an unofficial practice for the most part. But it was officially codified in 1944 and 1945 as a series of military directives that applied to members of the armed forces.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by md2000

I don't recall the basis for this - whether it was court ordered, or (more likely) executive order from the military occupation authority. Also, legally, can a person be convicted of a crime if they are already dead? Since from what I recall reading the news, the "punishment" happened only a few days after the bombing, I doubt there was any significant legal proceedings, unless it was one of those fast and loose military tribunals.

Actually, this raises another question: does Isreal actually know the identities of all of those suicide bombers, or were some of those houses picked more-or-less randomly because somebody needs to be punished?

[njtt]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Nope. We're talking about codified law. Got a cite from the Israeli criminal code to back up your assertion?

No we are not just talking about codified law. See the OP and post #17.

It is amazing how someone can always find a nitpick to prove that Israel has never ever done anything wrong.

Originally Posted by md2000

IIRC, the process was that the home of a suicide bomber was bulldozed. In that culture, many people live with a larger extended family, so it was deliberately punishing the family (since most of the perp was not around to punish). It was an obvious attempt to dissuade sucide bombers, but for some reason flattening the house of a dozen innocent bystanders seemed to instead make the Palestinians even more anoyed at the invaders. Seems whether the bomber owned the house or not, whether in fact he had actually lived at his registered address recently, etc. was irrelevant data in the decision.

I don't recall the basis for this - whether it was court ordered, or (more likely) executive order from the military occupation authority. Also, legally, can a person be convicted of a crime if they are already dead? Since from what I recall reading the news, the "punishment" happened only a few days after the bombing, I doubt there was any significant legal proceedings, unless it was one of those fast and loose military tribunals.

Plus, since Israel is a democratic western country according to their website, I cannot imagine such a "law" actually being on the books.

Oh, well that makes it alright then.

[Ethilrist]

Would it count as punishment if kids of a convicted single parent were put into foster care?

[Canadjun]

Some people try to treat the Bible as a legal code.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by pravnik

Yes. At English common law, someone found guilty of treason lost not only their property but the right to pass property through inheritance by "corruption of blood." Corruption of blood by attainder of treason is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

I understood this was the reason accused people ended up being 'pressed' to death -- stones piled on boards across them. This was a technique used to get people to plead guilty or not guilty, because English law didn't allow the trial to go forward without a plea. But if the trial went forward, and they were found guilty, a probable punishment included death for them and forfeiture of their property, which would leave their spouse & children destitute. If instead, they died when being 'pressed', the family still inherited the property.

Also, during the Cold War, many of the communist countries punished family members of people who defected. i remember when they first started allowing East Berlin people to go to West Berlin to visit relatives for Christmas, the whole family couldn't go at once -- some had to stay behind so the others wouldn't defect.

[Manda JO]

It is my understanding that under English Common Law a husband was considered legally responsible for any crimes his wife committed against a third party while he was present, as the presumption was that they were a single legal entity and he was the deciderer.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

It is my understanding that under English Common Law a husband was considered legally responsible for any crimes his wife committed against a third party while he was present, as the presumption was that they were a single legal entity and he was the deciderer.

Yes, but I think there's a difference here. These laws were essentially treating the husband as an accomplice to his wife's crimes, on the assumption he must have known about and condoned her activities.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by njtt

No we are not just talking about codified law. See the OP and post #17.

It is amazing how someone can always find a nitpick to prove that Israel has never ever done anything wrong.



Oh, well that makes it alright then.

If you want to educate yourself on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_d...inian_conflict

This describes it pretty well, from both sides of the issue.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Terr

If you want to educate yourself on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_d...inian_conflict

This describes it pretty well, from both sides of the issue.

There is no other side. People are being punished, without even due process, for crimes they didn't commit. That is evil.

It is a human rights violation. It's good to know you only support human rights when it is convenient.

Originally Posted by Terr

That's where we differ. I (and quite a few other people, including the founders of the United States) think that rights are non-negotiable. As in "inalienable". No one can take away the man's rights except the man himself, by his own decision.

Originally Posted by Terr

No, that would be a violation of my right to property. See it's that pesky "inalienable rights" issue that you're still having a problem with.

Pesky indeed.

[Mops]

BTW the most drastic and longstanding practice in this regard seems to have been the Nine Familial Exterminations in China.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

There is no other side. People are being punished, without even due process, for crimes they didn't commit. That is evil.

It is a human rights violation. It's good to know you only support human rights when it is convenient.

Pesky indeed.

Israel does not have US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. In fact, British Mandate laws are still valid in Judea and Samaria - and British mandate law number 119 covers house demolitions.

In fact, US does have something similar. If someone living in your house deals drugs, your house can be confiscated under RICOH statutes.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Was it really necessary to Godwinize the thread?

Godwin's Law isn't relevant because the OP asks about laws throughout history.

IMO, Godwin's Law is nothing if not tiresome. A thread about swastikas couldn't mention Nazis for fear of Godwin's Law showing up in the next post.

[Terr]

Quick correction to my above post: it's RICO statutes.

[Leo Bloom]

I might add that the Biblcal injunction "an eye for an eye," endlessly cited as [often Jewish as opposed to Catholic] as moral depravity, is actually an ethically gentle rebuke to the OP and the cases cited here.

In Afghanistan, say, the you-killed-my-clansmen, I-kill-four-of-yours word thereby be prevented.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Nava

For failure to uphold her duty of making sure the boy went to school. Yes, he was the one skipping, but she was the one responsible for having him in school.

Yes, that's true in Ohio, also, under the curfew law. A kinda similar statute pertains to wrongful entrustment (sometimes titled "owner operator"), under which a person is prosecuted for letting someone else drive her car when the driver did not have the lawful privilege to do so. The driver may still be prosecuted for no driver license, driving under suspension, etc.