Ancient times

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

• 116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death.
• 210. If [a man strike a free-born woman so that] the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
• 230. If [builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and] kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

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.

Arab 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]

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 reintroduced to the peninsula 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]

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]}