Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ozzie_osman | Hacker News Reader

I think I remember reading (maybe in the book WEIRD) that in Western societies, as the "rule of law" spread and as society became more individualistic overall, murders shifted from being between strangers or weak acquaintances (ie a dispute, a robbery, etc) to being intrafamily (ie killing a spouse, parent, etc). Ie 200 years ago, it was unheard of, but now most murders are like that.

Abuse might be different, I couldn't find data (and im guessing that data on abuse would be harder to find than on murders).

View on HN

Isn't intrafamily killing more or less a staple of ancient literature? Cain/Abel, Romulus/Remus, Clytemnestra/Agamemnon, etc.

There is quite a high local murder rate at the moment, but most of that seems to result from drug-business disputes, or simply the availability of firearms to settle neighborhood disputes.

Under Roman law, the paterfamilias (i.e., the eldest adult male of the extended family) had the right to kill any other family member, at his pleasure. He could also control who (or even if) they married, sell them into slavery, etc.

"Over time, the absolute authority of the pater familias weakened, and rights that theoretically existed were no longer enforced or insisted upon. The power over life and death was abolished, the right of punishment was moderated and the sale of children was restricted to cases of extreme necessity. Under Emperor Hadrian, a father who killed his son was stripped of both his citizenship and all its attendant rights, had his property confiscated and was permanently exiled."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

Yeah, it obviously changed over time, and is no longer in effect today.

Hadrian was quite late in Roman history, far closer to its collapse than its founding.

German Wikipedia refers to this authority as "closely watched" for abuse by public officials; there being reports of such abuse, but only a few of them; and it being a "mostly symbolic" right. There are fifteen cases of killings known to us, and in almost all of them, the punishment would also have been due to other legal constructs.

None of this contradicts anything you said, I'm just adding some context. Roman heads of family obviously weren't habitually killing relatives all the time.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Potestas

> far closer to its collapse than its founding

Sorry, this isn't really an important point, but I found it quite implausible so I checked. Hadrian ruled until 165 years after the founding of Rome. It continued for another 257 years.

Roman empire: 27 BC – AD 395 (as a unified entity)

Hadrian: was Roman emperor from 117 to 138

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

Roman Empire was a direct continuation of the Roman Republic (indeed, for most people living at the time, they didn't even perceive it as a breaking point). It's certainly not a valid date for the "founding of Rome".

Rome was around for many centuries before the Roman Empire began. The traditional date for the founding of Rome is 753 BC (while there's no certainty in this date, it's probably not off by very much). It was a kingdom for about 250 years, then a republic for about 500 years, and only then did it become an empire.

Rome had been in existence for over 800 years before Hadrian assumed power.

Many people don't realize that Rome had a republic and then lost it. Probably more people should know that, and learn about how it happened.

And Rome would endure for another thousand years, give or take, after Hadrian, even if its capital wasn't in Italy anymore...

It was. Every time I hear people grumble about criminals walking free (which, admittedly, is infuriating) and that we should be allowed to settle things "like we used to", I think back to how disputes between families could be so bitter that you might not even be able to leave your own home. And these disputes could last for generations.

Rule of law certainly has its benefits.

> 200 years ago, it was unheard of

That doesn't mean it didn't happen - I assume it happened more in the past and just almost never reported.

Why would you assume that one type of killing was reported more than another kind? From the evidence I have gathered from primitive societies existing today without conventional legal apparatuses, they find the concept of murder within the society almost unthinkable and have no memory of such events taking place. On the other hand, it is not typically seen as murder to kill an outsider.

I assume there was (and partially still is) a very strict taboo on intrafamilial murder and abuse. It's very hard to hide a murder nowadays, but just looking at abuse, we know there are a lot of unreported cases even in a modern society. It must have been much worse in more 'primitive' societies.

Who would report it? If parent kill their child they are unlikely to, if someone else kills their child they are likely to.

> From the evidence I have gathered from primitive societies

What evidence are you referring to? Also, again "unthinkable" is different from it not happening. In fact, it makes it even more likely to be covered up, if people don't care to investigate, or otherwise want to know.

I would assume that it happened but was passed off as an accident and not murder. That is a man runs crying to town "my wife is dead!", cries at the funeral, and gets community support as a man grieving his wife - she is dead because he poisoned her, or ensured she would get hit by those falling rocks that look like an accident, but if you don't have modern investigation you have no way of knowing that. (it can go the other way too of course)

There are lots of ways to kill. Some will be investigated more than others.

On the other hand, I think it was common in a lot of places for a long time for families/clans to settle disputes internally - if someone was killed and everyone agreed it was justice, then it wouldn't end up reported/remarkable. This is probably the category that most intrafamily disputes would fall into.

A lot of old fashioned nursery rhymes and children's stories are about evil step-parents?

Also, during this period, the population moved from rural dwellings to cities, where there are (usually) more jobs and more written rules and policing.

But note that in the period in question, the human population has increased by a factor of 7.[0]

The population of the planet has more than doubled since 1970.[0]

More people in cities. And more voices, more disagreements, and more misfortunes to report.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Past_populati...

Murders we tracked, or murders committed? Without the rule of law, perhaps scores were settled in ad hoc village or clan courts without reporting to the outside world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com