These days, news about executions and inhumane punishments, which are still being carried out despite the existence of many opponents, have occupied the minds of human rights activists and supporters of abolishing punishments that violate human dignity. Despite research showing the ineffectiveness of capital punishment, it is still being implemented.

In most countries around the world, capital punishments have been abolished and alternative punishments are imposed for serious crimes, but our country, despite criticism from the international community, is still among the countries that recognize the death penalty as part of its criminal policy and has the highest per capita execution rate compared to the total population, with a portion of these executions being carried out as retribution for intentional murder crimes.

Execution, intentional murder without restraint

The death penalty and its consequences are a highly debated topic. Supporters of capital punishment often view it emotionally and with shaky logic, believing in its deterrent effect and emphasizing the lesson it teaches. They also argue that, due to different cultures, the implementation of such punishments has become a matter of tradition and is passed down from generation to generation. On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty believe it to be the most severe punishment for unforgivable crimes and an inseparable part of human culture in various societies.

Contrary to the beliefs of critics and opponents, the government does not have the right to intentionally deprive a citizen, even if they are a criminal, of their right to life. Critics of this method of punishment believe that execution is a pre-civilization method and belongs to a time when modern rights had not yet reached human societies. They see it as a fire that fuels violence and revenge in society. They also believe that a punishment-centered and coercive justice system is not proportionate and, in general, the goal of justice is to improve the conditions of society. They view criminals as members of society who, under coercive conditions such as genetics, environmental factors, and culture, have become criminals and should have the opportunity and conditions for change and rehabilitation. Therefore, rehabilitation of criminals can play a more effective role than punishment. On the other hand, proponents see it as a solution, regardless of the dimensions of time and place, which the holy book of Muslims has designated for preserving the

However, the controversial section of capital punishment is related to retribution. The answer to the question of what retribution is can be found in Article 381 of the Islamic Penal Code, passed in 2013. According to this article, retribution is the punishment for intentional murder. It should be noted that this punishment can only be applied legally if the victim’s family requests it and if all other legal conditions for retribution are met. In the absence of these legal conditions, other forms of punishment such as blood money and disciplinary punishments will be applied.

Qisas is considered a prescribed punishment; meaning that its type and amount have been determined in religious laws and regulations, and the legislator does not have the authority to change it. It can only be implemented in crimes that are punishable by qisas, which are also based on religious laws and specific verses and regulations. Qisas is a ruling that is derived from the Quran, in verses 187 of Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 40 and 41 of Surah Ash-Shura, and verse 126 of Surah An-Nahl, and for this reason, the legislator applies it in the same way as it is mentioned in the Quran, without any alteration or interference, and without considering the dimensions of time, place, and progress of civilizations. The result is that the punishment of qisas has a jurisprudential and religious basis, and it is considered sacred by the lawgiver.

Of course, this issue is a subject of debate and there are many discussions about it. The legislator has tried to narrow the scope of intentional murders and expand it to include unintentional killings and pure error, in order to reduce the number of capital punishments. However, research and statistics show that this method of legislation has not had a direct or indirect impact on reducing the trend of implementing retribution punishments.

It is worth mentioning that there is no point in the world where a judicial system exists that can guarantee that the innocent will not be punished; as there are alarming statistics and evidence that even in highly just legal systems, there have been cases where innocent individuals have been mistakenly tried and proven innocent after being sentenced to death. There are numerous reports of judicial and trial errors, which unfortunately the legislators have easily overlooked and have not been able to sound the alarm in order to protect the lives of innocent individuals who have been wrongly accused. This is a clear indication that the death penalty is inevitable due to human error and mistakes.

But the question that occupies the mind is whether, despite the opposing and supporting views on capital punishment, can the death penalty be considered a deterrent? To answer this question, we must first consider to what extent punishments can contribute to deterring individuals from committing both primary and secondary crimes, whether in the initial commission of crimes or in their repeated commission.

Can a criminal be used as a means of intimidation for other criminals? Is it morally justifiable to spare the life of a criminal, even though they may instill fear in others and prevent them from committing crimes? And most importantly, despite the implementation of strict punishments, why does the number of intentional homicides continue to rise?

In response, it can be said that undoubtedly there are multiple factors, including motivating and driving factors, that contribute to the commission of crimes, which requires extensive studies and research for judgment and decision-making in this matter; furthermore, the focus of governments should be on policies to reduce crime and eliminate the underlying causes and motivating factors for crime.

At the end, it must be considered that from the perspective of psychologists, sociologists, and legal experts, retribution punishment for the survivors of the victim has many emotional, psychological, and sentimental consequences and puts a heavy responsibility on their shoulders. Evidence has shown that in cases where the heirs insist on retribution, they eventually feel regret and guilt, and their peace is taken away from them.

The act of retribution intensifies the vengeful spirit in individuals and leads to the spread of violence in society. In addition, in some cases, the execution of individuals sentenced to retribution also causes psychological and economic turmoil and collapse for their families, creating a cycle of crime and criminals.

It is necessary to go beyond the realm of criminal law and extend to the field of human rights when considering the issue of execution. Surely, there must be a more suitable solution than depriving the criminal of their life as punishment.