Tyler (ابو پاسكال) ([info]giantlaser) wrote,
@ 2004-05-27 11:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Blood Money
The guards chased off a thief two nights ago. He came in over the back wall from the abandoned house behind us. This is the area where we are building our new living quarters, so we're suitably concerned about security there. This was a small incident - a warning shot sufficed to send the black-clad man running like a frightened cat.

However, this has caused us to step up the schedule for installation of our shiny new razor wire (Thanks, Jayme's company!). We should have it up in a few days. The neighbors are going to just love it. Our new house has a guard observation box on the corner over my bathroom, so the combination of fiercely-loyal peshmerga, flesh-ripping steel wire, and bright outward-facing lights should eliminate all but the most determined small-arms clashes.

Ah, home sweet home!

The oldest and most respected guard is Noor Al Dien (that's just his first name). He came to me to ask me about the company policy on shooting intruders. I misinterpreted his question, answering that the policy is "One warning shot, and allow him to flee. If he does not flee, shoot to kill." But he wasn't asking about when to shoot. He was asking "Who pays the blood money, me or the company?"

A note for those unfamiliar with Iraqi culture: when someone is killed, the killer's family has an obligation to pay the dead person's family. This money is called "fassel" (فصل), and can be translated as "blood money". Some may consider this practice barbaric, because it assigns an explicit value to human life. I think it's a better idea than we have in the west, where we assign no value at all. Because killing a man carries a monetary penalty, people take murder very seriously. And you cannot run, because even if you do, your Mom will still have to pay.

I told Noor Al Dien that the company will pay the blood money for any man he kills on the job. That's obviously the best policy. If he's got a man in his sights, I don't want him to hesitate because he's got to pay for it later. He watches my ass, I watch his. That's the deal.

Just to make it more interesting, Imad told me this: if we capture a thief, we may hold him until his family comes and pays to get him back. Which is really funny, and definitely something I wish we could do in the west. But I think I'll make the company policy to turn thieves over to the police. Maybe he'll get off, maybe he'll bribe his way out. But we don't need to get into the hostage business.



(Post a new comment)


[info]octal
2004-05-27 03:04 am UTC (link)
Would restitution for theft be netted against blood money? If someone steals a $5000 item from you and their blood price is $500, do you get $4500, or does his family get the $500 and no restitution for theft?

How does this work for domestic violence or other killings within a family?

Blood-money was pretty common throughout Europe too for a long time.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]giantlaser
2004-05-27 04:02 am UTC (link)
There isn't really restitution for theft. Because if we catch him, we got the goods too. Just hostage fees.

Hostage-taking is a business here, too. Nab rich guy or his kid, make exchange. Price is usually reasonable, too. Not until the foreign insurgents showed up did it ever involve killing.

Domestic violence against a wife would mean you pay the wife's family. She isn't your property, she doesn't change her name, she still maintains very close relations.

None of this applies to what the legal penalty is, which is still applied. So murder a guy and you both pay AND go to jail.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

weregild
[info]ultranurd
2004-05-27 05:57 am UTC (link)
The concept of blood money was something that faded in European culture under the influence of the "more civilized" Roman Empire. Most of the ancient Germanii tribes practiced "weregild" (literally, man-gold), in which the killer (whether it was a duel, combat, murder, whatever) would have to pay the family of the victim, typically with livestock.

And really, how is this any different from OJ's civil suit, for example? The families of the victims got money from the (alleged) perpetrator... sounds like blood money to me. Although our litigiousness apparently requires a long drawn out lawsuit instead of a simple exchange...

(Reply to this)


[info]taiyosan
2004-05-27 09:44 am UTC (link)
Humm ... somehow or in someway - its makes some sense. Wonder what would happen if police, etc., had to pay blood money?

(Reply to this)


[info]tongodeon
2004-05-27 10:35 am UTC (link)
What happens if you take off and your Mom has to pay the blood money but she doesn't have any? Does she get killed? Or what if you have no surviving relatives? What if it's an Osama Bin Laden thing, where that person has been disowned by their family? Speaking of which, could the 9/11 widows hypothetically travel to the Afghan/Pakistan border and demand blood money from Osama?

The business of being a bail bondsman seems an awful lot like blood money: bondsmen will collect the bond from skips' families if they jump bail, then hunt them down and collect the bounty from turning them over to the police.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]giantlaser
2004-05-28 04:45 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway. :)

The purpose of blood money is to prevent revenge killings by giving the grieved family a means of restitution. Despite news to the contrary, this is not an eye-for-an-eye society.

You're asking specific questions about rare situations. What you may not realize is that this, like EVERYTHING else here, is a negotiation. If you can't find family, you find close friends. People don't use phone books and directories here, they ask around. Everyone knows someone, and someone knows who is responsible. People find out.

The victims of the 9/11 attacks could definitely go to the families of the plane hijackers. Osama is harder, as he was clearly disowned.

But the purpose is also to help the grieved family. How much can a poor Arab family help rich New Yorkers? My employees make $250 / month. I make ... an order of magnitude more than that. If I killed a man, I would be expected to pay a lot, because I can help a lot. If a man killed me or my close relative, I could not expect him to pay as much as I would for the same crime. It is negotiated.

As to Bail bondsmen, I don't see how they can collect bail from skips' families, as they are not legally accountable. Wives of even next of kin, perhaps. Certainly after the skip's death and before his possessions are distributed, they can collect. But anything else is probably just harassment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tongodeon
2004-05-28 10:40 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway. :)

It's entirely non-rhetorical. I'm a great admirer of Islamic and Jewish law, in that both instituations seem to have very precisely defined codes of conduct backed by fascinating reasons. I have a lot of lawyer friends and I also have frequent "what if so-and-so did such-and-such" discussions with them. I've been reading this page which has a lot of great stuff in it.

You're asking specific questions about rare situations.

Well yeah, but that's where all the fun discussion happens. :)

You're asking specific questions about rare situations. What you may not realize is that this, like EVERYTHING else here, is a negotiation. If you can't find family, you find close friends. People don't use phone books and directories here, they ask around. Everyone knows someone, and someone knows who is responsible. People find out.

Hmm. So in the case of Osama his family wouldn't be liable but perhaps somebody else in the organization would be? What determines responsibility? Is it JUST bloodlines, or could I be required to pay if my very close friend murders someone? And what would happen if somebody just refused to pay? Do they get ostracised by the rest of the town or can they expect revenge or what?

But the purpose is also to help the grieved family. How much can a poor Arab family help rich New Yorkers? My employees make $250 / month. I make ... an order of magnitude more than that. If I killed a man, I would be expected to pay a lot, because I can help a lot. If a man killed me or my close relative, I could not expect him to pay as much as I would for the same crime. It is negotiated.

Ah, good point. I didn't realize that there was such a sliding scale but I suppose it makes sense. My question was more academic: not specifically "those 9/11 widows trying to get restitution from the Bin Laden family" but more generally "people trying to get restitution from families who have tried to distance themselves from the person who committed the crime". I'm also curious about suicide bombers in general: does the victim's family seek compensation from the attacker's family, or does the attacker's family say "hey our son blew up also - we're even"?

As to Bail bondsmen, I don't see how they can collect bail from skips' families, as they are not legally accountable. Wives of even next of kin, perhaps. Certainly after the skip's death and before his possessions are distributed, they can collect. But anything else is probably just harassment.

When bondsmen get someone out of jail they always get a legitimate co-signer: someone who *is* legally accountable to pay if the guy skips bail. Usually this is a parent or well-to-do friend: someone who is even less of a flight risk than the guy they're bailing out, hopefully someone who's close enough to the suspect that their liability will persuade them to talk. "Hey listen, if you tell us where he went and we catch him you won't have to pay what you co-signed for, and as an added bonus you won't be an accessory."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]giantlaser
2004-05-30 12:20 am UTC (link)
Payment is what keeps the revenge killing from happening. If you don't pay, you can expect a blood feud.

It's quite common to see women of a grieved family camped out in front of ministries or embassies trying to recover money for a lost one. But it doesn't mean it will happen. Obviously, revenge killings against powerful individuals are a bad idea. So they have no recourse at all. Some give up, some stay longer than those people waiting to get into the next Star Wars release.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dataghost13
2005-01-17 10:17 pm UTC (link)
The best way to do a revenge killing against a powerful family is to take out the patriarch. Make it worth your while...either that or take out the youngest children and let the family know that you'll continue until the family has no future in the land of the living.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dataghost13
2005-01-17 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Cutting off the head as well as the tail is definitely one way to make your point perfectly clear in such a scenario...cut off the family one notch from their past and prune one from the family's future...I think you'd only have to do this once, one patriarch, one child to effectively make the family pay the money...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dataghost13
2005-01-17 10:14 pm UTC (link)
Disowned or not, he still carries the family name and funds activities with family business made money. The family pays...no question of it...they have a social responsibility on how Osama uses that bin Laden money...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]crypticreign
2004-05-28 06:24 am UTC (link)
"I'm not dealing with you..!
Not the one to thank,
Execution therapy,
Put that in your bank.

You're a liar...!
(Blood money!) Liar!!!
(Due now!) Liar!!!
(Blood money!) Liar!!!

Payment due an' I'm collecting you."

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…