This heartbreaking article tells the story about the family of an American woman who was murdered in Qatar. Due to the particularities of Islamic law (and their shocking juxtaposition against Western law), the victim’s family find themselves in a moral quandry: accept blood money (in this case, about $56,000) from the murderer’s family in exchange for a lesser sentence, or tell the judge what punishment they want the murderer to get (death penalty, life in prison, whatever).
Although the concept of “blood money” seems a bit ghastly, at first blush, to this Westerner, after thinking about it I can see some sense in it. Say, for example, that my adult daughter was murdered by her abusive husband. His family pays me “blood money” in exchange for a lesser sentence. I can then donate that money to a charity that provides help for victims of domestic violence; set up a trust fund for my grandkids; or what have you.
Depends on the amount, and the inconvenience that it represents to the killer.
If a killer has a total wealth of one million dollars, then a $990,000 payment might be acceptable. But if a murderer is a billionaire, then a payment of $5 million for a murder is unacceptable. It’s no inconvenience to him or her.
It should be 95-99% of the killer’s wealth, at least.
It also depends on the circumstances. A cold-blooded, cruel murder needs life imprisonment or death, period. No blood money. A drunk driving hit-and-run is less heinous.
It seems up to the family. I think a just sentence would be more important to me than the money, but it’s understandable to me that some families in different circumstances might feel differently.
It isn’t that the concept is ghastly, it’s that nobody should be able to buy their way out of the appropriate penalty.
I realize that ‘equal justice under the law’ is an ideal that we all too frequently fail to live up to, but it still needs to be the ideal. And if one has the explicit right to buy one’s way out of part of one’s sentence, then it’s no longer even a goal of the system that we often fail to live up to, but rather a goal that has been abandoned entirely.
Nope, won’t take it. The guy gets off lightly and may harm someone else. It gives an advantage to the rich to buy their way out of crimes others would have to suffer for. It turns the victim into property bought and sold.
Isn’t wergild at the foundation of English common law? The idea that there is a way to put off an endless blood feud seems very civilized, to me, though of course money can’t undo the crime. But neither can execution.
I’m more reserved on this issue than the “Hell yes!” option, but my basic leanings would be toward yes. Sending someone to prison is not shown to be effective at rehabilitating them. It may be marginally effective at preventing future killings. But, really, jail is a pretty broken system for achieving much of anything tangible. The only other reason to send them to jail is for punishment/revenge and I think a large enough cash payment satisfies this element.
And, let’s be honest, there are members of my family that I’d just as soon see offed. For example, there’s a small chance that when my grandparents die, I’ll get my mother’s ashes back.
Doesn’t matter. The reason why the state, rather than the victim or his/her survivors, bring charges against a criminal, is that crimes are recognized as an offense against the entire body politic, not just the victim. It’s not a private matter. And even the prospect for buying one’s way out of part of one’s sentence simply shouldn’t exist.
If you really look at the system you’ll find that they are being offered this money to compensate them for the lost bride price. The income potential of the chattel their son destroyed (the victim, a daughter) is what’s being returned to them.
No way would I allow any court to reduce my daughter in this way, or to allow anyone to assuage their guilt by feeling that giving me money had somehow compensated for her loss.
F them and F this system and everything it stands for.
That said, in tort law American courts reduce lives, limbs and other human losses to monetary settlements every day. Pobody’s nerfect, but at least we base the formula on something other than the sex of the victim.
I’d take it for the right price. I don’t think I’m too fond of the concept, but it’s basically “here, have this money, or don’t”. I’m not going to refuse it out of spite or ideology. But you say “but by taking the money, the offender’s going to get off easier”. I suppose, but honestly that doesn’t affect me much. I’m not going to pass up $50,000 for some vague societal benefit.
I wouldn’t have any interest in taking the money, especially since it would probably be gathered by family and friends rather than the actual perpetrator. And I certainly have no interest in someone getting a lesser sentence than the system says they deserve.
As for participating in determining the sentence, though — no thanks. I can’t imagine thinking I could be fair-minded about it under the circumstances, and I’d likely second-guess myself no matter what I did. Better to not contribute to that discussion than to make a contribution I’ll regret later.
I don’t know. In both cases we’re saying somebody did something wrong, caused a death, and is being required to pay the family of the deceased what that person’s life was worth. These seem to be the important factors. The legal procedures used seem more like details.
This I agree with. The idea of our legal system is that everyone is equal before the law. It shouldn’t make a difference whether a murder victim or the murderer is a wealthy businessman or a homeless bum - the state should treat them equally without considering who was worth more financially. It also shouldn’t be a factor about how large a family the victim had. The murder of a childless unmarried orphan shouldn’t be handled differently just because there’s no family to collect any money from his death.