Do Judges Obstruct the Legislative Reform to Combat Honor Violence? Understanding the Judiciary's Role in Perpetuating Honor Violence in the West Bank

Abstract

The prevailing literature depicts judges as traditionalists hindering progressive legislative changes to address honor violence. This study examines judges’ perceptions of their roles within the criminal justice system, focusing on judicial attitudes in the West Bank. It evaluates these attitudes through certain factors: the punitive policy of Penal Code No. (16) of 1960, particularly its gender-biased provisions on sexual crimes and judges’ views on Article 340; judges’ awareness of the sociopolitical context of the West Bank and its relevance to honor violence; and their opinions on the Palestinian Authority's legislative reform efforts. The empirical analysis of Palestinian judges’ attitudes explores whether judicial decision-making follows a formalist, realist, or mixed approach. The study argues that a mixed approach is highly present in the Palestinian judicial processes. Specifically, deliberation often validates intuition, allowing the punitive policy of the Penal Code to guide judges in balancing these elements, thus providing some judges with justification for gender-biased rulings. This impact of the punitive policy reflects that the static judicial stance mirrors the static legislative stance.