After watching the documentary: “A Girl in the River”, one of the perspectives on honor killing that stood out to me was the perspective of the first lawyer. His perspective was that honor killing should be treated as murder and charged as thus. Currently, the killer(s) can be acquitted if the family forgives the killer(s). This could lead to the amount of honor killings rising, since the killer(s) can easily get away with it. It is a question of public policy, more than it is wrong or right, since without specific laws stating that honor killing is a crime and will be punished, people may keep on doing it.
Another perspective that challenged my thinking was that of the father. Even though my own perspective goes against honor killing, the points that the father brought up did seem logical and could justify his point of view. His perspective was that he worked lawfully to feed her and to take care of her, so it was her own fault to run away. He was obliged to do it since she took away her honor. It seems that their community values honor a lot, and taking away honor from a family member could be considered unlawful.
“Even though my own perspective goes against honor killing, the points that the father brought up did seem logical and could justify his point of view.” I think it’s really good how you added your own perspective and how the character’s goes against it but there are still some logical reasons to support it. You’re trying to listen to the reasoning from both sides even though you have your own stance on the issue.
“One of the perspectives on honor killing that stood out to me was the perspective of the first lawyer.” One thing that you could add would be why did these perspectives stand out to you and what you think about them. If you agree and why, or if you don’t and why. Like, do you think honor killings should be treated as murder? If not, then how should the law prosecute it?