In recent years, various campaigns opposing the death penalty have been formed, each considering execution and qisas as the most prominent and dangerous threats to society, whose harmful effects do not release our reality and collective life during this era of history. Nevertheless, our criminal justice policy, in response to these collective movements, has generally been indifferent. In fact, the frequency, certainty, and immediacy of executions and qisas have significantly increased. Yet society has always pursued its path of fundamentally criticizing qisas and the death penalty.

More than 166 executions in October 2024 (12 Mehr to 12 Aban 1403) appear to be the highest number that Iranian human rights organizations have reported in the forty-something years of our criminal judicial system’s history. Criticism of the widespread implementation of the death penalty has also reached international institutions and the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran (Ms. Maï Sato). However, the wheel of justice has not stopped for even a moment in continuing death sentences and qisas.

There was a time when acts of compassion, the emphasis on clemency and forgiveness, mechanisms of pardon and reconciliation, and the work of committees promoting peace and patience (such as “Khoon Solh,” or Blood Peace Committees) actively bridged the gap between offenders and victims, as well as their families. There was always hope for the forgiveness of offenders. However, the increasing number of executions—especially qisas rulings in cases of premeditated murder—indicates a transformation in this area. In some cases, even the essential protocols and vital procedures for implementing qisas have been violated. For instance, notifying the family of the victim or the lawyer and family of the convicted person has been removed from the process.

The reality is that writing about qisas, as one of the conventional forms of execution, is inherently difficult. Criticism of qisas begins first and foremost with a critique of its foundations and the jurisprudential and political propositions associated with it. Although the conceptual and practical foundations of qisas, along with its operational roots and principles, trace back to prehistoric times and are observed in various cultures and eras, with the emergence of major religions, qisas gained continuity through historical reliance on jurisprudence, theorization, and alignment with political governance objectives.

As qisas is considered one of the ratified legal provisions in Islamic jurisprudence, it has appeared and been implemented in every historical period after the advent of Islam, accompanied by specific justifications. It has also played a role in shaping political policies and criminal justice strategies, depending on the governance model of the country.

From a historical perspective, and with an approach rooted in genealogy and anthropology, in Islamic lands, any breach of a covenant or desecration of something considered sacred in Islam has led to qisas and retaliation. According to the famous verse of retaliation (Al-Baqarah: 194), not only human life but also property, reputation, sacred places, and even the sacred months are protected by religious law. Based on this verse, if enemies attack Muslims during the sacred months (Rajab, Muharram, Dhu al-Qa’dah, Dhu al-Hijjah), despite the ruling prohibiting war during these months, war, retaliation, and attack against them are authorized. Similarly, if someone commits a crime in the Sacred Mosque, they are to be subjected to qisas there.

This verse has been applied not only to qisas but also to other areas such as commerce, usurpation, pilgrimage, warfare, and insults. The study of the applications of the rule of retaliation in these various fields is not the subject of our discussion. However, according to the widely accepted view of jurists, the right of qisas, equivalence, and retaliation applies to both financial and non-financial matters. In some cases, the roots of qisas and the right to retaliation have been sought in the demands of human nature and rationality.

Some views, which contemporary statutory rights also partially follow, describe qisas as a source of social vitality and refer to it as a foundation for saving humanity. The disagreements have been about the methods of implementation and practical application of qisas. In understanding the position of qisas, familiarity with the concept of teqass—the retrieval of rights without a court ruling—is also necessary, as it has been regarded as a legitimate means of resolving disputes and fulfilling rights, both financial and non-financial, by many jurists. The concept of teqass is significant in understanding the practical and conceptual roots of qisas but lies beyond our current discussion and requires separate research.

The essence of qisas, its procedural shortcomings, the discrimination and contradictions surrounding it, and its social and religious functions are of great importance. Despite the widespread enforcement of qisas rulings, crimes such as murder, intentional killing, and assaults on physical integrity have never ceased. This highlights the fundamental inefficiency of the principle of qisas.

In general, sociological and social perspectives on qisas, and collective conscience, have undergone fundamental changes compared to the past. However, our country has lagged behind global developments in this regard. While there have been efforts to introduce modern punishments, dynamic jurisprudence has increasingly explored the historical and contextual dimensions of qisas, questioning its validity and relevance in modern collective life. Today, some consider qisas to be separate from the essence of Islamic law and argue that re-interpretation or even reform is possible.

The reality is that the desire for execution and the dominance of the victim’s family over qisas are only perceptible during specific moments, such as courtroom sessions or the act of placing the noose around the convict’s neck. But the true authority belongs to statutory law. Without statutory law, qisas cannot be regarded as an independent or natural right. The fleeting satisfaction of avenging blood is one of those transitory sensations that often transforms into a traumatic anxiety for the families of both the victim and the perpetrator. Additionally, the legal and social effects of executions and qisas leave lasting scars on families and the broader society.

Viewing qisas as a form of social vitality in the modern world acts as a form of collective trauma that ties execution, killing, and violence to a hidden, unconscious desire in society for satisfaction. This notion stands in stark contrast to contemporary scientific and psychological understandings.

Ultimately, qisas offers no tangible benefit beyond the momentary satisfaction of survivors—a reality that underscores its ineffectiveness in addressing crimes and fostering societal well-being.