Honor Killing dan Blood Feud: Kerangka Komparatif Pembunuhan Kolektif dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Berbasis Peran

Abstract

This study aims to differentiate honor killing and blood feud as a collective murder through an operational typology for enforcement, to formulate a role-based model of criminal responsibility centred on instigators, facilitators, and executors, and to assess how legal pluralism shapes enforcement legitimacy and access to evidence. The research employs a normative legal method with a conceptual approach, drawing on library research and qualitative, descriptive-analytical reasoning. The findings indicate that classification based on triggers, target selection, temporal horizon, and exit conditions provides a more stable basis than motive narratives: blood feud operates as a retaliatory cycle with target substitution and intergenerational obligations, while honor killing functions as reputational restoration through relational control and moral narrative management. The role map aligns instigators, facilitators, and executors with participation doctrines such as joint enterprise/conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and common purpose, accompanied by proof safeguards to prevent kinship-based guilt by association. Legal pluralism produces divergent state responses ranging from tolerance justified by stability to symbolic prosecution aimed at reaffirming penal authority, indicating that effective policy requires role-based prosecution, robust witness protection, and the disruption of in timidation nodes that sustain cycles of retaliation and reputational control.