The translation of the Farsi text is: “The image on the right.”
A hypothetical image of a Neanderthal human.

When it comes to punishment, the first and most important element of this social reaction towards phenomena that society deems deserving of a strong response is purposefulness and achieving a predetermined outcome, not a sense of revengefulness. Mahatma Gandhi says: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” If the intention is to commit the same wrongdoing in response to another deviant act, there is no need for knowledge of the law. Vengefulness and animosity do not require knowledge or education.

In this discourse, which condemns the punishment of execution, it can be proven through the “functions of criminal law” that in today’s world, “execution” and depriving a person of their life have been excluded from the category of punishments and have been formulated as a futile reaction by the legislator and out of a sense of retribution. However, by comparing crimes in terms of their impact on society, the punishment of execution can be challenged against other punishments such as exile and imprisonment. Furthermore, by referring to statistics and existing documents, it can be proven that abolishing the punishment of execution does not harm society. Nevertheless, we will examine and investigate this topic by posing a question and searching for an answer, under the title of another challenging issue.

Does anyone have the right to take the life of their fellow human being?

This is a picture of a beautiful garden.

United States of America – Washington D.C. – 1865.
Alexander Gardner – Daily Mail

To answer this question, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the history of the death penalty. The death penalty is one of the oldest and most primitive forms of punishment that humans have learned and applied towards their own kind. In primitive societies, the Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis) resorted to actions to punish their own kind and to intimidate others from committing acts that were not approved or welcomed by them, or that threatened their territory, authority, or ownership. This was done in order to prevent their own kind from repeating such acts and to warn others not to engage in such actions.

The most basic punishment was physical punishment – inflicting bodily harm through external means or otherwise. This punishment was initially carried out by powerful and physically strong individuals within the primitive tribe or society towards others. Gradually, this primitive society (the community of Neanderthals) expanded to the point where the number of strong and powerful individuals with higher physical abilities than others increased, to the extent that the situation went beyond the control of previous strong individuals and physical punishments such as beatings and injuries could no longer prevent other human actions.

This is an image caption.
Canada – Quebec – 1902 (Wikipedia)

Therefore, for the first time and after the first serious confrontation with their own kind, humans learn a truth called murder or “killing others”. Murder becomes an effective and irreplaceable tool for preserving individual and tribal interests under the control of a powerful individual. This is while “rights” have not yet entered the realm of existence and Neanderthals could not live under rational and collective reasoning. After the transition from primitive humans to Cro-Magnon humans (intelligent humans and the ones that current humans (Homo sapiens) descend from) and with the advancement of human awareness and understanding of their surroundings, humans learn that in order to continue living in society, it is necessary to abide by rules and laws – under any name or title. Therefore, intelligent humans (Cro-Magnons) created the first legal rules against powerful and Neanderthal humans in order to reduce their power and share the privileges that were previously only reserved for a few individuals with others. Although these initial legal

This is an image caption.

France – Paris – 1642.
The effect of Johann Laiken – National Library of France.

Basically, this “homophobia” has not been condemned for a long time and human society has completely accepted it as a normal behavior and norm; just like gender discrimination. Gender discrimination has also existed throughout history in human society until intellectuals and thinkers realized that equality is essential for human social life, not discrimination. Therefore, they reacted to it and guided society towards gender equality. Hence, opposing “execution” is like opposing “gender discrimination” and is the result of human growth and consciousness to preserve the foundations of the societies in which they live.

With this explanation, agreeing to the implementation of the death penalty based on the opinions of tyrants and dictators leaves no room for defense. No wise person is willing to replace the thought of despotism with progress and rationality.

The caption is not provided. Please provide the Farsi text to be translated.
Iran – Kurdistan – 1979 (Jahangir Razmi – Wall Street Journal)

So if those who support the right to take away life do not believe in the will of dictators, on what basis and under what authority do they give themselves the right to insist on taking away the lives of their fellow human beings, with any justification?

The answer to religious rights goes back. Religions have sentenced humans to murder and deprivation of life in many cases. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there are various laws in this regard, and many of these laws are still practiced in human societies. In other words, the right to take the life of a fellow human being, according to this group, is a permission that has been granted to them by God; although many followers of these religions have denied this right and have written criticisms and books to reject it. But the reality is that the rights and laws that have heavenly and earthly roots, and the laws that are based on supernatural logic, are not subject to rational debate and argument.

This is a picture of a beautiful garden.

Ottoman Empire – Constantinople 1915.
Armen Wegner – National Institute of Armenia

This is while we live on Earth and our earthly society follows the earthly rules that we have interpreted and formulated ourselves. Humans have gradually learned that they must live peacefully in society and with other members of the community, and the principle of “peaceful coexistence” should take the place of authoritarian and transcendental thoughts. We have learned that murder and other violence destroy the foundations of life and coexistence. Without life, coexistence has no meaning; although all religions may decree otherwise. If a person has come to the conclusion that, for example, drinking water is necessary for human health, even if all religions deny it and identify it as harmful to human health, following it will have dire consequences for us.

Human life has been given to them by a truth other than humans. Even if we are atheists and non-believers, we must accept that the right to life has been given to humans by the universe. Humans and human societies have not given life to each other in order to be able to take it away.

This text does not have a translation as it is a caption for an image and does not contain any meaningful words or sentences.
Nazi Germany – 19

Criminal rights today, not only seek revenge, but also do not intend to harm the criminal in carrying out punishments. The goal of modern criminal rights is to achieve specific goals in order to preserve the principle of peaceful coexistence of individuals in society. Based on this, the criminal is deprived of some of the rights he has in society in order to achieve this goal. For example, a criminal who has committed theft is sent to prison and during his imprisonment, various educational programs are used to try to rehabilitate the criminal. The aim is for the individual to become a trusted and productive member of society after serving his sentence and continue his peaceful life with others. Therefore, criminal rights – in a broad sense – cannot take away something that has not been given to individuals by society. Can a father-child relationship be taken away?

It is possible to prevent a father from seeing his child due to his involvement in deviant behaviors, but no one can ever take away the relationship between a father and child. Even after their death, this relationship remains. This example shows why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to life as an inseparable principle of a free human being.

This is a caption for the attached image.
Shuravi – Petrishiva (executed by the Nazis) – 1941

Every year on October 10th, in commemoration of the World Day Against the Death Penalty, hundreds of articles are written and dozens of conferences and speeches are held all over the world. Unfortunately, in our country, due to the sensitivity of the issue, especially in regards to retribution and religious laws, it is not possible to hold such sessions and activities. They even use the tactic that the public opinion in Iran is also in favor of the death penalty for serious crimes and use democratic justifications to deprive critics of the right to discuss this issue. But let’s not forget that the people of countries claiming to uphold human rights, such as France, were also in favor of the death penalty until 1981. Let us not forget that 63% of the French people, a few years after the abolition of the death penalty, demanded its reinstatement and even today, when a heinous crime occurs in this country, some people take to the streets and demand the execution of these

It should not be forgotten that the wise and intellectuals of society guide the community towards a long and difficult path to happiness. In the 1940s in Iran, the Iranian thinker, Dr. Mehrangiz Manouchehrian, wrote her doctoral thesis in the field of law, on women’s rights in Iran. In this thesis, she fully challenged the entirety of Iranian civil law – which was based on Islamic jurisprudence and in conflict with women’s human rights – and brought it to light.

In response to his message, Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari was compelled to interpret the book on women’s rights in Islam in order to possibly provide an answer to this intellectual reaction.

Thoughts and beliefs like those of Dr. Manuchehrian were the ones that prepared Iranian society for accepting gender equality today, and the issue of gender equality is being taken very seriously in the country; otherwise, our traditional society may have never even considered it for years to come.

Regarding the death penalty, the same principle applies; when individuals like Dr. Mostafa Rahimi in the late 1950s translated “The United Nations Report on the Death Penalty” by Mark Ansel into Persian and showed the Iranian society that peaceful coexistence can be maintained without resorting to this useless reaction. As a result, it was the progressive thoughts and beliefs of people like him that we are now witnessing valuable works such as the book “The Right to Life” by Emad al-Din Baghi.

There is no Farsi text provided to translate. Please provide the text to be translated.

Iran- West Azerbaijan- 2008.
(Farsi) translates to (Persian) in English.

…and I know,

If I make a lawn.

I will die ….

Sohrab Sepehri.

There is no Farsi text provided to translate. Please provide the Farsi text for translation.