The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be one of the governments that rigorously carries out the death penalty in its judicial system. The latest statistics show that at least 528 people were executed in Iran during the past year (October 2021 to October 2022) (1). However, this number only includes executions officially announced by the Iranian judicial system and domestic media, or confirmed by human rights organizations using their own sources, and the actual number is likely higher.

Insistence on the continuation of issuing and implementing the death penalty in Iran is happening while this punishment has been abolished in more than two-thirds of the world’s countries or has not been implemented for years, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with Saudi Arabia and China, are among the countries where the death penalty is still in place and the judicial system defends it.

On the other hand, the struggle against the death penalty and efforts to abolish it in Iran have always been met with security crackdowns, and even some human rights activists, lawyers, and civil society activists have been pursued and imprisoned for opposing the death penalty and demanding its removal from the laws. This is because the only acceptable method for the government to prevent executions is through retribution (in cases of intentional murder), and the accepted method is only to seek the consent of the victim’s family.

However, the experience of countries that have abolished the death penalty shows that the process of abolishing this punishment is more than just convincing citizens not to demand it, and it must be pursued simultaneously on both cultural and legal fronts.

Abolishing the death penalty is a legal and lawful process.

Although the abolition of the death penalty requires social preparation through education and social justification, especially in societies where this punishment has been promoted for years, it must be understood that the process of abolishing the death penalty is a completely legal process and therefore requires both social and legal justifications. This is because, until its abolition, although it is an inhumane punishment and contrary to human rights principles, it is still considered legal in the sense that its implementation is considered a legal execution. Opposing the non-enforcement without making necessary legal changes (especially in determining alternative punishments) is simply opposing the law and will result in a legal void in criminal punishments.

In this regard, one of the most important challenges in the field of abolishing executions is the answer to a question that, although it may seem superficial to some extent, but without answering it, the possibility of abolishing the death penalty will not be possible in essence. This question is generally interpreted as “what should we do with criminals? Should we allow them to do whatever they want in society and cause insecurity and crime?” The main origin of this question is mostly due to the lack of appropriate laws in the field of criminal punishments, especially in Iran, where the legal vacuum in the field of proportional punishments has not only caused concern among the society, but also among some lawyers who doubt the legal possibility of abolishing the death penalty and its resulting consequences.

This challenge will not be solved except through a legal process, by passing appropriate laws to replace the death penalty. In almost all countries where the death penalty has been abolished, the legislative system has taken action to determine alternative punishments that are proportional to the crime and punishment (such as life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment without the possibility of pardon) and in this way, they have filled the legal void resulting from the abolition of the death penalty.

On the other hand, nowadays there is no doubt that the legal necessities are considered one of the main reasons for the necessity of abolishing the death penalty. For example, the death penalty is fundamentally contradictory to the philosophy of punishments in the field of law and does not have any of the essential elements of criminal punishment. Deterrence, discipline, and retribution are among the elements upon which the necessity of implementing punishments is based, and a punishment that does not have any of these three elements does not have the competence to be implemented. It is clear that due to its destructive nature, the death penalty does not leave room for retribution and therefore will not serve as a form of punishment. The experiences of countries that have abolished the death penalty show that this punishment does not have a deterrent effect; because after its abolition, the crime rate in these countries has not changed. Furthermore, criminological findings show that crimes such as intentional murder and rape (which in Iran are punishable by death) are

From a legal perspective, the death penalty is one of the punishments that, if wrongly issued and executed, can result in intentional murder and therefore has a high potential for injustice. This potential has led to the examination of cases where the prescribed legal punishment is execution, not only facing prolonged legal proceedings, but also in many cases being removed from the judicial process and turned into a struggle between life and death. On the other hand, human error in criminal cases is so common that it is necessary to refrain from imposing any irreversible punishment and to leave room for the possibility of changing the fate of criminal cases as much as possible.

All together against the death penalty.

The necessity of following a legal process for abolishing the death penalty is never a sign of the lack of public readiness and support for the abolition process. The experience of countries that have abolished the death penalty, especially in the last fifteen years, shows that the more public support there is for the fight against this punishment and the demand for its abolition increases, the legal process also moves faster towards abolishing the death penalty.

In this path, the role of civil organizations and grassroots movements is very significant. These organizations, with the use of their social capacities and in collaboration with media, influential groups such as artists, journalists, athletes, human rights activists and civil and human rights activists, play a crucial role in raising public awareness and preparing society for the abolition of the death penalty. The role that these organizations have played in the abolition of the death penalty in countries such as Malta, Latvia, Armenia, the Philippines, and some states in the United States is undeniable. Collecting and localizing the knowledge and experiences of other countries in the field of abolishing the death penalty, launching advocacy campaigns, organizing training courses, especially for legal actors (legislators, judges, and lawyers), and increasing public knowledge about the legal necessity of abolishing the death penalty are among the functions of civil organizations and grassroots movements in the process of abolishing the death penalty.

However, due to the fact that the struggle against the death penalty and advocacy for its abolition in some countries is not tolerated by the ruling political system (such as the Islamic Republic), the transition to democracy and the rule of human rights is also among the trends that have been observed in some countries that have abolished the death penalty. It has been proven through experience that dictatorial, totalitarian, and oppressive regimes have a stronger insistence on the continued implementation of the death penalty as a legal punishment and use it as a means of political suppression. For example, in three countries in South Africa, Haiti, and Rwanda, the abolition of the death penalty was only achieved after the establishment of democracy and the end of oppressive regimes.

Implementing fundamental political and judicial reforms, especially through amending constitutional laws, is one of the methods that some countries have only been successful in abolishing the death penalty after its implementation. This is because it is the only significant change in the constitution that can compel closed and totalitarian systems to accept legal and judicial reforms. For example, it is evident that despite the explicit declaration of the Islamic Republic’s constitution regarding the superiority of Islamic laws over human-made laws, it is not possible to abolish the death penalty without a change in the constitution (or at least the approval of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic). It is only through a change in the constitution that the groundwork can be laid for a legal abolition of this punishment. The implementation of fundamental reforms in the constitution of Uzbekistan in 2005 and the subsequent abolition of the death penalty is an example that shows how serious reforms can play a crucial role in abolishing the death penalty in totalitarian systems.

However, the process of changing and amending constitutional laws in countries (especially those with authoritarian regimes) largely depends on the will and cooperation of political leaders. Without the necessary political will to achieve the main goal, which is abolishing the death penalty, it will be difficult to make significant changes. In some societies, even social norms may resist efforts for fundamental changes, and it is the political will of leaders that can compel society and the law to conform to human rights principles and the necessity of abolishing the death penalty. The role of political leaders in abolishing the death penalty in Senegal, Mexico, and Mongolia shows that their cooperation with anti-death penalty movements is crucial in creating the necessary conditions for change.

Ultimately, what happens in practice is that the existing laws regarding the death penalty are repealed and new criminal laws determine the alternative punishment. Although examining the experience of countries that have abolished the death penalty shows that some of these countries have only stopped enforcing the death penalty and have not entered into discussions about the nature of prohibiting its issuance or repealing its laws, the practical reality of some countries’ efforts to reinstate the death penalty, which have not been successful (Donald Trump attempted to reinstate the federal death penalty during his presidency but was unsuccessful), indicates that it is better to abolish the death penalty in addition to repealing the law, accompanied by an amendment to the constitution prohibiting its reinstatement; especially in societies like Iran where for years the death penalty has been promoted as a suitable punishment and is still considered irrevocable for a number of citizens.

Note:

1- On the occasion of the World Day Against the Death Penalty; Report on one year of executions in Iran 2022-2021 (by the efforts of the Statistics Institution of Human Rights Activists in Iran).

Hirana News Agency.

, 17 Mehr month 1401..