The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics in contemporary criminal law. Despite the global trend towards limiting and abolishing it, it is still used in some countries – especially in cases of serious crimes. In some countries, it is also used as a political tool not only to combat crime, but also as a means of suppressing opponents, displaying the power of the government, and responding to demands or social pressures. International human rights documents also emphasize principles such as the right to life, the prohibition of cruel punishments, and the need for fair trials, and increasingly insist on the necessity of limiting or completely abolishing the death penalty. However, the implementation of these principles depends on the domestic legal system of each country. Concerning statistics of the use of this punishment have been reported in some countries, including Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen. For example, Amnesty International announced in its 2024 Global Report that in that year, more than 1,500 people were executed

From a legal and criminological perspective, intentional murder is an act that involves the deliberate killing and planning of one or more members of society, and is considered a serious crime due to its irreparable nature and clear violation of the right to life. In the legal theories of proponents of capital punishment, the main argument is based on the premise that by committing intentional murder, the criminal forfeits their right to life due to the implicit social and legal contract and the disruption of the balance of rights between individuals. Therefore, the right to retribution as a mechanism for justice dictates that the criminal should receive an appropriate response for their crime through the punishment of execution, in a way that reflects the principles of proportionality between the crime and the punishment. In fact, proponents of capital punishment believe that when an individual intentionally takes the life of another human being, they seriously violate the principles of human dignity and social order by depriving the victim of their life. Therefore, the appropriate legal response is the precise implementation

However, despite its apparent acceptance, the argument for the abolition of the death penalty in cases of intentional murder is faced with serious criticisms from the perspective of human rights and fair trial principles. In fact, proponents of the death penalty claim that the perpetrator of intentional murder, by violating the victim’s right to life, is implicitly disregarding their own right to life and the death penalty is simply a reflection of this choice. However, this view contradicts fundamental human rights principles, as the right to life is recognized as an inherent and universal right in international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6). This right is based on the inherent dignity of every human being and cannot be conditional on an individual’s behavior or used as a reactionary punishment. Even in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which does not completely prohibit the death penalty, its use is limited to “the most serious crimes” and must be

Furthermore, the Optional Protocol to the Convention (adopted in 1989) explicitly states its goal of completely abolishing the death penalty. This shows that the global community is moving towards eliminating this punishment. In addition, depriving someone of their life as a punishment, even in cases of intentional murder, is incompatible with the principle that human dignity is inviolable. If human rights are to be applied to human behavior, the universality and fundamental nature of these rights are called into question. Therefore, the argument of defenders of the deprivation of the murderer’s right to life has no solid legal or moral basis and cannot justify a violation of the fundamental principles of human rights.

In the light of legal, criminological, and ethical discussions on the issue of capital punishment, it can be said that this punishment, despite its historical background and continued use in some criminal systems, faces serious and undeniable challenges. At the international level, the dominant trend among human rights documents and institutions is towards limiting and completely abolishing the death penalty, emphasizing that the right to life is absolute and non-negotiable, and should not be violated even in emergency situations. Multiple empirical studies have also questioned the deterrent effect of the death penalty and have shown that its presence or absence does not significantly impact the rate of violent crimes. Furthermore, the dangers of judicial errors, discrimination in the trial process, and political abuse of the death penalty in non-democratic systems have turned this punishment into a destructive and irreversible tool. From an ethical perspective, responding to violence with violence is not only a violation of human principles, but also legitimizes cycles of violence that are in conflict with modern principles of justice.